Why I like states counterplans
States counterplans - having the 50 states enact the plan instead of the Federal Government - have been a staple for decades. In the last few years, however, I've run across an increasing number of people who think that the states counterplan is abusive or a cop-out. This year's NCFCA resolution has plenty of room for states arguments, so it's worth a quick discussion.
In this post I'll discuss several of the most common objections to states counterplans, and why states arguments make sense as a legitimate Negative strategy.
The "multiple actors" complaint
"The states counterplan fiats all 50 states at once. If they're allowed to control multiple different agents, what's to prevent them from fiating peace between Israel and Palestine?"
The problem of multiple agencies is not unique to the Negative: The Affirmative is fiating multiple agencies too (the President, the 535 members of Congress, various enforcement agencies, etc.) Granted, they're all part of the same government - but the 50 states are still part of the same country.
There's a better example, however. In 2005, the NCFCA Team Policy resolution was Resolved: That medical malpractice law should be significantly reformed in the United States. Experienced debaters may notice something unusual: The resolution doesn't specify an actor. Since they weren't restricted to "the United States Federal Government", most teams just ran state-level plans that passed the same law in all 50 states. Under the "multiple agencies is bad" mindset, this should have been a recipe for chaos - but it wasn't.
On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to have an abusive counterplan with only one actor (for example, "North Korea will unilaterally disarm.") The point here is not that multiple-agent plans can't be abusive, it's just that the number of actors is not the determining factor. We shouldn't automatically reject a plan just because it uses multiple agencies.
The "not real world" complaint
Here's another related counterargument: "50-state counterplans aren't real-world. The 50 states never get together and decide to implement the same laws - that just doesn't happen. If the Negative is allowed to propose solutions that are theoretically possible but wildly unrealistic, what's to prevent them from fiating world peace?"
This would be a good argument - except that it's completely incorrect.
The Uniform Law Commission, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), is a multi-state organization dating back to 1892. It has one purpose: Propose uniform laws for adoption by all 50 states. To date, the NCCUSL has drafted over 100 act proposals, on topics ranging from adoption to student credit.
Ever wonder why checks work the same in every state? Most people just assume that there's a federal law standardizing check formats, but in fact, it's a state law - the Uniform Commercial Code, a joint project of the NCCUSL and the American Law Institute.
Think about that. That's amazing. The Federal government could easily have done it - they'd have no problem justifying it under the Commerce Clause - but, instead, the states all got together and did it. Real-life counterplan!
Testing the resolution: Why states arguments make sense
Let's look at the NCFCA resolution this year:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its criminal justice system.
Debaters are expected to make all sorts of arguments about the resolution:
- We shouldn't significantly reform the criminal justice system; the problems are small.
- We shouldn't reform the criminal justice system; it's fine the way it is.
- We shouldn't reform the criminal justice system; the problems are with the laws, not their enforcement.
We're expected to argue about "should", "significantly", "reform", "its", and "criminal justice system". So why aren't we expected to argue about "The United States Federal Government"?
A states counterplan is just like a significance argument: it tries to prove that part of the resolution is false (in this case, "The United States Federal Government should".) If you're OK with counterplans theoretically, it makes no sense to allow arguments about the second half of the resolution while shunning arguments about the first half.
Federalism: Why states arguments are important
States counterplans are not a cop-out, "we-like-this-plan-but-we-have-to-argue-against-it" strategy. Simply put, there are lots of things that should be done on a state level, not the federal level. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, many federal solutions are unconstitutional (by overstepping the authority granted to the Federal Government.) Besides the constitution, local control has many other potential advantages, such as easier adaption to regional diversity.
All this is merely to say that when you run a states counterplan you're raising a really important issue - not just grasping at straws so you have something to argue.
Extend-o-tron 5000: Competing with the Affirmative
States counterplans are in an interesting position, because they don't compete with the Affirmative in a direct, conventional way. Let me quickly recap the idea of competition.
In order for a counterplan to be a voting issue, it needs to "compete" with the Affirmative - that is, provide a reason to reject the resolution. It can't just be "another nice idea." In practice, this means that the counterplan alone must be better than both the counterplan and the Affirmative plan (otherwise, you could just implement them both, and there's no reason to reject the resolution.) Conventionally, there are two ways to achieve competition: 1) make the plans mutually exclusive (so you can't have them both at the same time), or 2) run disadvantages against the Affirmative plan. In many cases, states counterplans can go with #2 - if it's clear that the Affirmative plan is unconstitutional, you can just argue that the Federal solution is bad and the states solution is good.
There's another type of competition, however, which is rarely discussed: "competition through irrelevancy". A vast body of legal cases (see, i.e., Prigg v. Pennsylvania) have held that federal laws override state laws under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. If the judge enacts both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, the Affirmative (Federal) plan will take precedence.
In other words, if the judge decides to implement both plans, he/she is really deciding to implement only the Affirmative plan. The counterplan just disappears from the picture.
5 insane arguments that actually have evidence
Sometimes, you want to win. Other times, you just want to make the other team go "...wah?"
In honor of it not being April Fool's Day (hey, why not?), here are five of the weirdest arguments that there's actually legitimate evidence for. Have fun and debate responsibly.
Creating laws that can't be repealed is totally OK
"Legislative entrenchment" refers to creating a law with special provisions that prevent future legislatures from modifying it. In other words, legislative entrenchment bypasses democracy to create a law that can never be repealed. Everyone agrees that this is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and generally a Bad Thing.
Everyone, apparently, except Posner and Vermeule, two law professors at the University of Chicago. In 2002, the pair wrote a somewhat inexplicable article arguing that legislative entrenchment was totally OK:
Prof. Eric A. Posner (professor of law at the University of Chicago) and Prof. Adrian Vermeule (professor of law at the University of Chicago), April 10, 2002, Yale Law Journal, "Legislative Entrenchment: A Reappraisal", Vol. 111, http://www. yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/192.pdf (page 1666)
"Our claim is that the rule barring legislative entrenchment should be discarded; legislatures should be allowed to bind their successors, subject to any independent constitutional limits in force. The rule has no deep justification in constitutional text and structure, political norms of representation and deliberation, efficiency, or any other source. There just is no rationale to be found; the academics have been on a fruitless quest. Entrenchment is no more objectionable in terms of constitutional, political, or economic theory than are sunset clauses, conditional legislation and delegation, the creation, modification, and abolition of administrative agencies, or any of the myriad of other policy instruments that legislatures use to shape the legal and institutional environment of future legislation."
Pictured: Nietzche's philosophy. (Fun game: Go through Nietzche's works and replace every occurence of the word "suffering" with the words "the flying spaghetti monster". It actually makes a lot more sense than the original.)
Suffering is not an impact
If you think that's nuts, you apparently haven't read enough 19th-century German philosophers yet. This particular argument comes from Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche's works are extremely dense, to the point where there is an entire peer-reviewed journal dedicated to trying to figure out what the Heidegger he's actually trying to say. This, combined with the fact that he's dead and therefore has no lawyers, makes his works fertile ground for kritiks - you can pretty much claim he meant anything you want. For instance, that "suffering" was actually a codeword for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
One of Nietzche's oft-quoted ideas was that suffering is an essential part of human existence, and that the only way to find meaning in life is to accept fate and recognize pain for what it is. The correct reaction to this is to blink slowly and say "well, that's stupid." The debater's reaction is to this is to jump up and down and gleefully shout "OOH OOH CUT A CARD ON THAT!"
Friedrich Nietzsche (19th century German philosopher), 1886, "Beyond Good and Evil: prelude to a philosophy of the future", No. 225, http://books.google.com/books?id=lPHqR0kAQnsC
"You want, if possible--and there is not a more foolish "if possible" --TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and we?--it really seems that WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, as you understand it--is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible--and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline of suffering, of GREAT suffering--know ye not that it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring, interpreting, and exploiting misfortune, and whatever depth, mystery, disguise, spirit, artifice, or greatness has been bestowed upon the soul--has it not been bestowed through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?"
Nuclear war won't happen - aliens will intervene
You know nuclear war impacts, where every disadvantage eventually results in nuclear war? Right. Well, that won't happen, because aliens will intervene to stop it.
This is actually a very serious issue among the "UFOlogy" community, who claim they have witness testimony from over 120 former military personnel regarding alien intervention at nuclear weapons sites. UFOs have reportedly conducted surveillance, shut down nuclear launch systems, and even met with key military commanders.
One theory claims that the use of nuclear weapons interferes with the extraterrestrial's navigational abilities. Another is that the aliens are simply trying to prevent us from blowing ourselves up. At any rate, don't worry about nuclear war - the aliens won't stand for it!
Michael E. Salla (PhD in government from the University of Queensland, founder of the Exopolitics Institute), August 12, 2006, Exopolitics Research Study #11, "'Divine Strake' vs. 'Divine Strike' - Did Extraterrestrials Deter the Pentagon from a Preemptive Nuclear War Against Iran?", http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-11.htm
"Historical evidence supporting a possible extraterrestrial divine strike to prevent a preemptive nuclear war can be found in the publicly verified relationship between nuclear weapons testing and UFO sightings, extraterrestrial interference in the storage of nuclear weapons, and the alleged destruction of nuclear weapons by extraterrestrials. If extraterrestrials have acted in the past to interfere with or destroy nuclear weapons, it can be assumed that they would not have remained idle if a nuclear preemptive war against Iran affected their vital interests on Earth, and/or their ability to navigate in the Earth's vicinity."
'Experts' are worse than dart-throwing monkeys - just shut up
Popularly known in NFL circles as the "monkeys throwing darts" argument. Believe it or not, this is actually a legitimate and useful point; a number of interesting studies have been done on the accuracy of expert forecasters, with generally dismal results.
This particular quote comes from a fascinating summary of Philip Tetlock's equally fascinating book, "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" The whole article is worth a read if you've got time.
Prof. Louis Menand (PhD in English, professor of English and American Literature and language at Harvard, recipient of a Pulitzer Prize for History for his book "The Metaphysical Club"), December 5, 2005, The New Yorker, "Everybody’s An Expert", http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1?currentPage=1
"Tetlock is a psychologist-he teaches at Berkeley-and his conclusions are based on a long-term study that he began twenty years ago. He picked two hundred and eighty-four people who made their living "commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends," and he started asking them to assess the probability that various things would or would not come to pass, both in the areas of the world in which they specialized and in areas about which they were not expert.
[later, in the same context:]
The results were unimpressive. On the first scale, the experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes-if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world, in other words, are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices."
Delaying space colonization costs 100 trillion lives per second
Math. Just in case you ever needed a reason not to delay space colonization.
Prof. Nick Bostrom (PhD, professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, director of the Future of Humanity Institute), 2003, Utilitas, "Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development", Vol. 15, No. 3, http://www. nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
"Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be sustained around an average star. Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to about 10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization. What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillion potential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our supercluster."
Note: Due to my very busy schedule right now, I probably won't be able to post every week. In the meantime, check out The COGblog, where the COG 2011 editorial team is posting a free throw-together 1AC and backup every Saturday leading up to release. Enjoy!
Getting the most out of your browser
Have a look at your computer...
...and notice that the keyboard and mouse are not in the same place.
How you use your keyboard and mouse can have a big effect on how efficient your research is. During an average research session, you'll switch back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse literally hundreds of times. If it takes about a second for each transition, you're probably spending five to ten minutes of each session just moving your hands around. This effect is particularly noticeable when compiling citations. The delay caused by copying and pasting many small bits of text can be frustrating when you just want to get back to researching.
This post is basically a compilation of shortcuts and techniques to minimize unnecessary clicks, keypresses, and hand movements while researching - faster ways to do ordinary things.
I wrote this with Firefox in mind, but most of the tips will work with other browsers as well. (See my previous post, "Browser battle to the death", to see why I recommend Firefox.)
The Keyboard
Believe it or not, you can perform most common actions entirely from the keyboard, without ever touching the mouse. This can be handy when an operation requires a mixture of keyboard and mouse actions; if you can do it all from the keyboard, it will probably be faster than switching to the mouse and back several times.
Many common keyboard commands can be done with one hand without taking the other off the mouse. For example, to copy text, just use the Copy and Paste keyboard shortcuts with one hand, while selecting the text with the mouse. This is much faster than clicking through menus with the mouse alone.
Keyboard navigation
Navigating forms - Pressing the Tab key will select the next link or text field. This is especially useful for site logins. Just type your username, press Tab, and type your password; no need to switch to the mouse to click the next field. (You can also do this backwards by pressing Shift+Tab.)
Selecting text - Firefox includes a feature called "caret browsing", which puts a text cursor on the webpage so you can select text with the keyboard (just hold down Shift and move the cursor over the text.) Caret browsing can be turned on and off by pressing the F7 key; usually, selecting with the mouse is faster, so you'll probably want it off most of the time.
Scrolling - the Page Up and Page Down keys, as well as the Up and Down arrows, are often the fastest way to navigate a large webpage. This will work much better if caret browsing is turned off.
Menus - You can access the menus by pressing Alt. (Note that in Firefox 4 and above, the old menus are hidden; pressing Alt will show them again.) When the menus are active, you'll see little underlines; this indicates that you can type that letter to activate the menu option. For example, pressing Alt, F, E opens the Send Link menu option. 
Useful keyboard shortcuts
Copy and paste - If you're right-handed, use Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, respectively. (You can do this with your left hand without taking your right hand off the mouse.) If you're left-handed, consider using Ctrl+Insert and Shift+Insert instead - if you use the Ctrl and Shift keys on the right side of the keyboard, you can do this with just your right hand without taking your left hand off the mouse. It's closer than reaching over to the left hand side of the keyboard.
New tab - Ctrl+T. Opening a new tab will automatically put your cursor in the URL bar, so you can hit Ctrl+T and type in a Google search without ever touching the mouse.
Close the current tab - Ctrl+W.
Re-open the last tab you closed - Ctrl+Shift+T. This doesn't work in Safari.
Open the Find box - Ctrl+F. Since this puts your cursor in the Find box, you can start typing right away. Tip: Using the Find box is often much faster than scanning through the entire document to find the bit you want - just Ctrl+F and type in a related word. Pressing Enter will cycle through all occurrences of it (you don't have to click the Next button.)
Undo and Redo - Ctrl+Z and Ctrl+Y, respectively.
Reload and stop loading - F5 and Escape, respectively.
Back and Forward - Alt+Left and Alt+Right, respectively.
Focus the search bar - Ctrl+K.
URL autocomplete - Firefox and Chrome do this. When typing a URL, you can press Ctrl+Enter, Ctrl+Shift+Enter, or Shift+Enter to add .com, .org, and .net domains, respectively. For example, you can type google and press Ctrl+Enter, and it will autocomplete to http://www.google.com. This even works with subdomains and folders - for example, typing google/maps and pressing Ctrl+Enter will autocomplete to http://www.google.com/maps.
Add evidence in Factsmith - Ctrl+Alt+A. (Not a browser feature, but important to know.) This will bring up the floating Evidence Editor window on top of whatever application you're currently using. No need to switch to the Factsmith window before each new card.
The Mouse
Physical presence
If you're using a laptop, get a physical mouse to plug into it. Period. You can get them for a few bucks, and once you get up to speed, it's significantly faster than using a trackpad.
Things to look for:
- A scroll wheel is essential.
- Get an optical mouse, not a ball mouse; it's much better. Laser probably isn't necessary.
- Wireless vs. direct-connection is entirely a personal preference; wireless mice don't really have any everyday speed advantage over regular mice.
- Avoid trackballs like the plague. Some people prefer them just because they're used to them, but a good surface-mouse user will always be faster than a good trackball user.
Shortcuts
Obviously, if you have a scroll wheel, it's the fastest way to navigate a page. What you may not know is that the scroll wheel can also be used as a "middle" mouse button. If you middle-click a link, it will open in a new tab; if you middle-click an existing tab, it will close. (This is, by far, the fastest way to handle tabs. If you have a scroll wheel and you aren't using it, there is something wrong with you. 
) If you only have a laptop trackpad, you can get a similar effect by holding down Ctrl while you click.
Holding down Ctrl while rolling the wheel will zoom the current page in and out.
Mouse settings
There are a couple of mouse settings that can influence ease-of-use; play with them a bit until you get something you like:
Pointer speed: Set it as fast as you're comfortable with; you want to be able to travel all the way across the screen without sliding your wrist.
Enhance Pointer Precision: This is a Windows option that "ramps" the pointer speed, so slow movements are more precise and fast movements go further. This makes it dramatically easier to quickly flick to a button and click it. If it isn't already on, turn it on right now like seriously.
Double-click speed: If the double-click speed is set too slow, clicking on things twice can activate double-click when you don't want it to. Set it only as slow as you need it to be.
Snap to default button: Windows can automatically move the mouse to the default button in a window. I recommend keeping this off, because it makes keeping track of the mouse pointer more confusing, but it's a personal preference.
Mouse cursor theme: It does no good to have a cool animated horse for a mouse pointer if you can't see where you're clicking. Keep it simple.
Become ambimousetrous
If you're working on a laptop, learn how to use the trackpad and the mouse interchangeably.
The trackpad isn't usually faster than the physical mouse. It is, however, a lot closer than the mouse. If you're typing on the keyboard and need to perform a quick mouse action, just drop down two inches to the trackpad and do it there.
This can save a lot of time, so it's worthwhile getting good with both.
Mouse gestures
I talked about this in my previous post. This is primarily a feature in Opera, but you can also get it in Firefox by installing the FireGestures addon.
Mouse gestures are quick, easy mouse movements that you can perform instead of switching to the keyboard or moving the mouse across the screen to click a button. Generally, you hold down the right mouse button and move the mouse in a specific pattern:
Once you get used to it, it's much faster than conventional shortcuts.
This actually exists
Button remapping
Most mice have two buttons (not counting the scroll wheel), but you can also get ones with more. You probably don't want quite as many buttons as the OpenOffice mouse on the right (understatement of the year), but a few extra buttons can be handy.
Programming extra buttons to perform common actions like Copy, Paste, Clear Formatting, New Tab, etc. can save a lot of time and keypresses. How this is done will vary by the mouse.
The Browser
Firefox includes a great time-saving feature called "smart keywords", which deserves its own section. Chrome and other browsers include similar features, but the operation is different and they sometimes require plugins, so I'll only cover the Firefox version here. See here for partial Chrome instructions.
Bookmark keywords
If you right-click a bookmark and click Properties, you'll get a box with a number of options. One of these is "Keyword". This defines a shortcut to the bookmark that you can type in the URL bar; for example, I can open a new tab and type in hsd, and it will take me to HomeSchoolDebate.com.
Search keywords
There's a slightly more advanced version of this that's even more useful: if you right-click any search box on a webpage and select "Add a Keyword for this Search...", you can create keywords for search engines. For example, to search Wikipedia for "mushrooms", I could simply open a new tab and type in wiki mushrooms.
This can be used for very advanced searches; for example, by setting various options before I saved the bookmark, I was able to set up a keyword that searches all Google News articles since 2004.
To install the Google News archive search on your own browser, drag this link to your bookmark toolbar and give it a keyword like "gnews" from Properties: Google News Search | Archives. (You may want to move it off the toolbar to the menus afterwards.)
Browser battle to the death
Which browser is the best for debate research?
It's like an ancient ritual: every few months, debaters are obligated to drop what they're doing and try to convince complete strangers that Firefox is better than Chrome, or Opera is better than Firefox, or Safari is better than them all. After a few futile volleys, everyone realizes they have no idea what they're talking about, and the conversation ends.
I decided to get some hard data. Over the last few weeks, I did a few days of intensive research in each of the top five browsers: Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. My goal? Determine which was the most efficient research platform.
These are the results.
A few disclaimers
First, objectivity. This is an inherently subjective subject, so if you really, really love Internet Explorer - that's totally fine. I'm just telling you what conclusion I came to. Which happens to be that Internet Explorer is really, really terrible.
Second, background. Prior to this test, I used mostly Firefox, but I didn't have any particular "attachment" to it - I've used a number of different browsers, so being acclimated to Firefox wasn't a particularly big deal.
Third, purpose. Throughout this, I'm only going to be looking at suitability for research. Thus, I mostly won't be considering features that don't really affect the research process - like how nicely a browser renders Flash games.
Fourth, scope. This breakdown is not comprehensive - I may point out a feature or a problem that applies to multiple browsers, but only mention it once. In general, I'm only going after the most noticeable issues with each browser.
Fifth, platform. This article covers Windows browsers. In some cases, the browsing experience may be very different under Mac OS or Linux. In particular, Safari is much easier to use without a right-click button than other browsers; your mileage may vary.
Onward to the results!
#5: Internet Explorer 9
First, some (maybe) redeeming features
Accelerators: When you select text, IE pops up a little blue arrow with some fancy buttons to email, translate, etc. This could be useful, but I never really needed it, so it mostly just got in the way. By default, it's very heavily tied into Microsoft services like Bing and Live Mail.
Color-coded tabs: Internet Explorer tries to color-code tabs by their contents - for example, when I had two different biographies of the same person open, it recognized them and colored them both yellow. It's nice, but nothing to kill for.
Tab management: Internet Explorer attempts to open new tabs at intuitive locations on the tab bar, instead of just always sticking them at the end. It's a nice thought, but the execution is rather clumsy, so it's sometimes just confusing.
Taskbar: If you're using Windows 7, open tabs will display as separate images in the application-preview panel. You may or may not like this.
An inferior renderer
I'll be brief. Internet Explorer's page renderer is... not very good. Pages don't always look right, and those that do are often "rough around the edges" (literally - corners and edges are often fuzzy or disconnected.) The anti-aliasing routines also tend to make text look blurry. On the whole, it works fine, but there are better options available.
The interaction with the webpage is not always smooth, either. On more than one occasion, Explorer simply locked up and refused to let me edit a text field.
Internet Explorer is also visibly slower and clunkier than other browsers. The difference is most noticeable when scrolling - large pages tend to jump around and lag instead of scrolling smoothly, especially when other tabs are loading in the background. Scrolling also causes the graphics on some pages to glitch.
Interface problems
Internet Explorer's interface is generally OK, but there are plenty of problems. A sample:
Text select: Wow, this is frustrating. In every other browser I tried, when you select text, it selects the text. In Internet Explorer, when you select text, it selects... something, that may or not be the text. This isn't a problem for most articles, but when the page layout gets complicated, boy does it get annoying. Here's a video demonstrating the problem:
Copying text: When copying text, Internet Explorer doesn't put blank space between the paragraphs, so everything tends to run together. Sometimes it doesn't even put a single break in, so several carefully-formatted paragraphs are smashed together into a single block.
There are a few problems with tabbed browsing:
- IE doesn't scroll tabs until they get so small you can't read them anymore. Since the tab bar is very narrow, this makes it extremely difficult to work with more than a dozen tabs or so.
- The tab bar is down a little ways, instead of at the top of the window. There's no reason for this, since there's nothing else at the top of the window - just a blank space. This means that you can't quickly flick your mouse to the top of the screen - you have to aim carefully, which takes more time.
- The "New Tab" button is all the way on the other side of the window from the URL box. This isn't a big problem, since you can do everything from the keyboard, but it would be nice if they were closer.
Password memory: Like most modern browsers, Internet Explorer can save the passwords to sites you log into frequently, but it's somewhat inconsistent. For sites that redirect (read "most sites"), the "Remember password?" field tended to disappear before I could click it.
Javascript alerts: You can't copy text out of a popup alert. This is a problem for me, because I use a system of popup alerts to store login information for certain academic databases. I can see the text, but I can't copy it.
Bookmark separators: Folders of bookmarks can't have separator lines - everything appears together. This is a cosmetic issue, but it bugs me.
A thermonuclear game-killer (for some people, anyway)
Internet Explorer has no drag-and-drop. At all.
At this point, you are either a) re-reading the previous sentence with a mildly puzzled look on your face, or b) passed out on the floor. While we wait for the second group to wake up, let me explain what the problem is.
Factsmith, the quintessential awesome research software you should all have (hint hint), is built around drag-and-drop. Instead of selecting text, hitting a key combination on the keyboard, clicking where you want it to go, and hitting another key combination on the keyboard, you can just select the text and drag it to the appropriate location - much faster. Virtually every Windows application supports this - except Internet Explorer.
Those who have never used Factsmith won't understand why this is such a big deal, but a few minutes of it made me want to bang my head against the keyboard (and I'm someone who uses keyboard shortcuts a lot.) Does it make Internet Explorer unusable? No, but it does make it annoying. There are better options available; use them.
Did I mention security?
Internet Explorer is famous for being really bad with security. Partly because of its popularity, partly because of the slow, proprietary development cycle (IE vulnerabilities typically take much longer to be patched than other browser's), and partly because IE is built directly into the operating system (giving attacks a shortcut), the majority of malicious websites on the Internet target Internet Explorer.
Also, no adblock
One major problem with Internet Explorer is the lack of a good ad-blocker. Banner ads are unsightly and distracting, and slow down page loading. For most other browsers, you can get free plugins like Adblock Plus that do an excellent job of filtering them out before they even load. With Internet Explorer, you can't.
Really, though, these concerns are minor, and not a good reason to avoid Internet Explorer. Honestly, it's not that annoying to be reading through an article on Greek financial investors and have to occasionally skip past an unobtrusive 
AUGH NO KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
Seriously, if you're doing any serious research, get Adblock. And a different browser.
The bottom line: Version 9 is marginally better than previous incarnations, but a clunky renderer, missing or broken features, and rampant security holes drop Internet Explorer to the bottom of the list.
#4: Safari 5
A badly-designed interface
I'll cut to the chase. Safari's user interface is really badly designed. Let's take bookmarks for an example - it took me about five minutes to figure out how to create a bookmark, because it is not obvious at all.
Hmmm... there's a bookmark bar. Is there a button there to create a bookmark? No. What if I right-click? No. How about right-clicking the page? Nope. What about the tab bar? Oh, you can create multiple bookmarks at a time that way - but not one. (Why not?) Oh, there's a bookmark manager, it must be there - nope. (By this time I've figured out how to do pretty much everything else with bookmarks except create them.) Oh, there it is - the button with a plus sign to the left of the URL bar. (Why a plus sign, by the way? Literally every other major browser uses a star, which has been the accepted "bookmark" icon since Windows 98.)
The problem is simple: Safari is really bad at predictability - similar tasks are often accomplished in very different ways. I was looking in places related to bookmarks, while the actual button was in a place that had nothing to do with bookmarks. This is a common problem in Safari:
This is a minor example, but the same wind blows across most of the application. The list of problems with the interface goes on and on:
- You can't drag a bookmark into a bookmark folder on the toolbar, but you can do this from the bookmark manager. In fact, dragging is the only way to do this in the bookmark manager - so it's definitely the correct way to do it, but you can't do it in the most obvious place to do it. Why not?
- Favicons show in bookmark folders, but not on the bookmark toolbar. Why not?
- The "New Tab" button is way off to the right. You invariably have to move the mouse a long way to get to it, and it's very small, so it's hard to click.
- etc.
You can defend all this, arguing that it makes more sense to Mac users, you get used to it quickly, etc, etc, but the fact remains that there are much better ways to do the interface.
A plethora of problems
It didn't take me too long to get used to the quirky interface, but Safari had a lot of other problems that made research more difficult. Here are some things that bugged me:
Remembering tabs: This is, in my opinion, the biggest killer flaw of Safari. There is no way to make it remember your tabs when you close it. I have no idea why not - you can remember windows, just not tabs. If you want to save your session, you have to create bookmarks for your current tabs, or hunt through your history when you open it again.
Reopening tabs: There's apparently no way to reopen a tab you closed by accident. Supposedly, there's a keyboard shortcut, but it didn't work for me and it only works with one tab anyway.
Tab overflow: Good heavens, the tab overflow. Safari will only show a limited number of tabs at any given time (on my case, 13.) After this, you can only access the rest of the tabs by opening a menu to change which of the hidden tabs the final tab displays. The only way to show the hidden tabs side-by-side is to rearrange them on the bar - but oh, wait, you can't drag them off the menu, you have to repeatedly set the final tab's identity and then drag it. Also, every time you open a new tab, it gets dumped at the VERY END of the whole list - so if you want it to be usable, you have to set it as the final tab and drag it around. If this sounds bad, it is.
Text search: Every time you switch tabs, the Find box disappears. If you want to search for the same text in several different tabs, you have to re-enter it for each one. (Also, the Find box has no option for matching case.)
URL bar: You can't search Google from the URL bar. This wouldn't be a problem (there's a separate search box, after all), except that Safari automatically puts your cursor in the URL bar whenever you open a new tab - so you're forced to switch to the search box manually, wasting time.
Javascript alerts: Like IE, you can't copy text out of a popup alert.
Creating bookmarks: Aside from the issues listed above, you can't create a bookmark without actually going to the page - which makes it difficult to bookmark a script or a page that redirects. You have to create a dummy bookmark and then edit the address.
Bookmark separators: Folders of bookmarks can't have separator lines - everything appears together. Again, this is a cosmetic issue, but it bugs me.
Visual distinction: Page icons aren't displayed on tabs. In addition, the tabs seem to pick relatively random parts of the title to display - usually the beginning, sometimes the end, occasionally the middle. This means that if you want the tab with the Wikipedia page, you can't just click on the one with the Wikipedia icon; you have to look for the tab that reads "th Australia - Wik...", or whatever it says at the moment, and click on it.
Speed: Safari on Mac OS X is very fast, but on Windows, it's noticeably slower than most of the other browsers I tested.
Other concerns
One potential concern is security. Internet Explorer typically gets a bad rap, but Safari may be even worse, at least in theory. At the 2011 Pwn2Own cracking competition, it was fully compromised in less than five seconds. Safari on Windows is generally considered safer, however (partly because it's a smaller target.)
Another possible concern is stability. Safari was the only browser that crashed during my testing - several times. (This was made particularly annoying by the fact that I couldn't easily restore my lost tabs.) Another time, it decided to delete all my bookmarks for no reason.
Some redeeming qualities
If you ignore the bad interface, Safari is actually a decent browser. The rendering engine (WebKit, the same one Chrome uses) produces nicely-polished pages, and basic browsing functionality works more or less as expected. There are also some nice features for everyday browsing, like a very pretty most-frequent-bookmarks view when you open a new tab.
One feature to highlight is the slick Reader view, which strips away the page fluff so you can just view the article. It's pleasantly easy on the eyes, but probably won't make or break anyone's research experience.
Another thing to remember is that Safari is really designed around the Mac operating system. It gets a big speed hike on Mac OS X, and it's much more usable without right-click than most other browsers. As a result, Apple fans may feel more comfortable with it than with other browsers.
The bottom line: If you can stand the badly-designed interface, Safari is a decent browser - but it's a Mac machine at heart, and most PC researchers will find it incredibly annoying.
#3: Chrome 10
You may be surprised that Google's brainchild only makes #3. Make no mistake: Chrome is an excellent browser. It's fast, it's powerful, and it's secure, but it's beset by a variety of minor irritations that keep it from being an ideal research platform. I'd happily recommend it as a day-to-day browser, and as a web development platform, but there are better options for research.
First: Features I really liked
Chrome is fast. Other browsers have caught up in page-rendering and script-execution speed, so you won't notice much difference during ordinary browsing, but it starts up a lot faster than Firefox.
Excellent security. Chrome is widely recognized as the industry standard in browser security, mostly due to a "sandboxing" technique that isolates web pages from each other and the rest of the system. (Chrome is the only major browser to consistently remain unscathed at Pwn2Own.) In reality, completely ironclad security is unnecessary for causal research (the New York Times website is not going to give you a virus), but it's nice to have.
Automatic page translation. If you visit a page in a foreign language, Chrome will offer to translate it for you automatically. (You can get a similar ease-of-use in other browsers with the Translate bookmarklet I supply in this post - but it's nice that Chrome's automatic.)
The ability to re-open a closed tab by right-clicking the tab bar. I'm not sure why I liked this so much, but I did. In most other web browsers, you have to use a keyboard shortcut (usually Ctrl+Shift+T) to reopen a recently-closed tab, or hunt around on the menus; Chrome supports the keyboard shortcut, but it also gives you the option if you right-click the tab bar. It's just nice not to have to switch to the keyboard.
Integrated developer tools. I've been using Chrome as my primary web-development platform for some time now, mostly because of the fantastic developer tools. You definitely don't need them for debate research, though.
A variety of minor irritants...
Tab management: When you have a lot of tabs open, Chrome just compresses them until they get so small you can't tell what any of them are. Combine this with the fact that the Close buttons are always visible, blocking out the text, and it becomes difficult to handle more than 20 tabs. (Supposedly, this will be fixed in a future version.)
Search bar: Chrome combines the URL and Google search bar into one. I found this to be occasionally annoying when it would try to do something "smart" with my text that I didn't want. I got used to it pretty quickly, but a separate search box is more predictable.
Downloads: For URLs that directly download, if you open them in a new tab, Chrome will remove the URL when the download finishes. This is a problem if you want to get the URL for a PDF you downloaded with Google Scholar, since you can't copy the URL directly from Google (it will have a lot of redirect mumbo-jumbo in it.)
Javascript alerts: Like Safari and IE, you can't copy text out of a popup alert.
Bookmark separators: Folders of bookmarks can't have separator lines - everything appears together. Again, this is a cosmetic issue, but it bugs me.
Bookmark toolbar: By default, Chrome's bookmark toolbar only appears when you open a new tab, meaning it takes two clicks to open a new tab with a bookmark. This can be changed in the options, however.
Print preview: Inexplicably, Chrome has no print preview option, so if you want to see what a webpage will look like on paper, you're out of luck. (This can be annoying while printing extemp articles.)
RSS: There's no integrated RSS button, so you have to hunt around and try to find the feed URL manually if you want to subscribe to a page.
...and one deal-breaker
One major problem immediately dropped Chrome out of consideration for my top browser. Unlike all the other browsers tested, Chrome uses a custom, slimmed-down PDF plugin. It's slick and fast, but it has one debilitating flaw: You can't drag-and-drop text out of it - you have to copy and paste. Like IE, this makes Chrome annoying to use with Factsmith.
The bottom line: While all-around a solid browser, a few major deficiencies and a variety of minor irritants make Chrome less than ideal for a research platform (but not necessarily for other uses.)
#2: Opera 11
This was a bit unexpected. To my surprise, Opera was one of only two browsers I really enjoyed researching with (Chrome came close, but the PDF drag-and-drop issue kept coming back to haunt me.) Opera isn't perfect by any means, but it worked well, and it wasn't afraid to try out new ideas.
Bold new frontiers
Opera is a bit of a maverick, trying out new features before they become mainstream. For the most part, it operates (pun intended) just like any other browser, but a few features stand out:
Excellent performance on low-speed connections. The most interesting feature is Opera Turbo, a compression-proxy service that can make large pages load significantly faster. You can also use various other bandwidth-saving features like not loading images. If you have a decent connection, these features probably won't help much, but it's something to remember the next time you're trying to do late-night research on an overloaded hotel network.
Mouse gestures. This is really cool. Opera allows you to perform many common actions with "mouse gestures" - quick, easy mouse movements - instead of forcing you to switch to the keyboard or move the mouse across the screen to click a button.
Generally, you hold down the right mouse button and move the mouse in a specific pattern:Once you get used to it, it's much faster than conventional shortcuts (although you can still use them if you wish.) Mouse gestures are completely customizable; for example, I added one for copying text (see below.) (If you like mouse gestures, but want to use Firefox instead of Opera, there are addons like FireGestures that emulate this functionality.)
Comprehensive caching. Opera features much more sophisticated cache management than most other browsers; going forward and back and visiting pages repeatedly is often much faster, since it doesn't try to reload everything. You can even search the contents of all the pages you've visited in a session.
Full MDI tabs. Most browsers will let you have multiple windows. Opera goes a step further: it combines windows and tabs, so you can turn specific tabs into popup windows, while still managing them from tab bar. For example, you could put Google Docs side-by-side with a website for fast copying, without having two entirely separate windows.
Built-in bittorrent client. BitTorrent is a file-sharing transfer protocol; normally, to download torrents, you have to use special software. In Opera, you can download torrents just like any other file. I've never needed to use bittorrents while researching (honestly, they're mostly used for pirating software), but it's cool nonetheless.
Voice control. If you feel like commanding your browser to do things out loud (for whatever reason), you can do that. I promise not to look at you funny.
A well-done interface
For the most part, Opera is very intuitive - everything works about how you would expect. A few features in particular stand out:
Speed Dial: Opera has (in my opinion) the nicest "frequently used sites" display when you open a new tab. The tiles are large and clean, with crisp page previews. The URL bar is also well-done, with a powerful but not overly intrusive advanced-search dropdown.
Customizable: Almost everything about Opera can be customized, from the mouse gestures to the location of the tab bar. Compared to other browsers, Opera just plain has a lot of options.
Tab pinning and grouping: Tabs you use frequently can be "pinned" as icons, and several tabs can be grouped together. In practice, you probably won't use it much, but it's a nice touch.
Tab bubbles: I'm not sure what they're called, but they're nice. Tabs you open in the background will have a little bubble to let you know you haven't looked at them yet - useful when managing lots of different articles.
Tab preview: When you hover your mouse over a tab, it will display a preview of the page. (This sometimes makes it difficult to see the full title for a page, but that's a minor concern.)
Recently-closed-tab trashbin: All recently closed tabs are available by clicking a small trashbin icon. Other browsers have similar features, but it's nice that it's so easy to manage. The bin also stores blocked popups, which is a great way to handle them.
Javascript alerts: For once, Opera does allow me to copy text out of a popup alert.
Speed: Not really an "interface" issue, but Opera is fast, no question about it.
A few design missteps
Tabs: While tab management is generally excellent, there are three minor deficiencies:
- First, new tabs always open at the very end of the list, which can get annoying if you have a lot of tabs open. (Browsers like Firefox or Chrome will usually put them next to the current tab.)
- Second, the tab bar isn't quite at the top of the window - it's close, but there's a little gap. This means you can't just flick your mouse to the top of the screen - you have to aim carefully.
- Third, and most problematic, tabs don't scroll - they just compress until you can't read them. The problem isn't quite as severe as Chrome, however, and there are ways to compensate - you can pin tabs together, or have multiple rows of tabs. Still, it's a bit annoying.
Tabs will also sometimes behave in rather unexpected ways; for example, tabs sometimes randomly resized when I moused over them, making me miss the Close button. On the whole, it works well, but it it's not as polished as Firefox or Chrome.
Bookmarks: This is one major exception to Opera's general intuitiveness. Managing the bookmark toolbar is really, really awkward. You can sometimes drag things, and sometimes can't, and folders are really random. I was extremely confused at first, because I successfully created a folder, but did it in the wrong way somehow so nothing worked. Actually, managing bookmarks in general is a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
There are also no bookmark separators (well, you can do them in the sidebar, but not on the toolbar), and you apparently can't reorganize bookmark folders in anything except alphabetical order.
Trackpads: Like most browsers, you can open a link a new tab by middle-clicking. Unfortunately, if you're using a laptop trackpad without a middle-click button, you're out of luck: you can't use Ctrl+Click like you can with most other browsers. You can use a mouse gesture instead (right-click and flick down), but it's not quite as fast or comfortable.
PDFs: You can't view large PDFs until they're fully downloaded - most other browsers will let you view them as they download. This is only really a problem on slow connections.
Text search: Opera has the same problem as Safari - every time you switch tabs, the Find box disappears. If you want to search for the same text in several different tabs, you have to re-enter it for each one. (It does, however, have a Match Case option for once.)
Back button: You can't middle-click the Back button to open the previous page in a new tab. (Apparently I do this a lot more than I realized!)
Alas, poor Factsmith!: Drag and drop woes
Like IE and Chrome, Opera has problems with drag-and-drop. While you can drag text out of PDFs, you can't drag text out of ordinary webpages.
This is disappointing, since everything else works so well. I managed to compensate partially by creating a mouse gesture for Copy, which made it less frustrating than Internet Explorer, but I really missed the easy of drag-and-drop. Oh well, at least PDFs work.
The bottom line: Bold and under-appreciated, Opera features a wide range of innovative features, but falls a bit short on usability.
#1: Firefox 4
Even before reviewing my notes, Firefox was the obvious choice. Internet Explorer and Safari were merely frustrating; Chrome was solid but imperfect; and Opera was cool, but lacked a few key features. Coming back to Firefox felt like coming home after a long trip.
Firefox is simply very polished. This is a web browser that's been around a long time, has been used by a ton of people, and knows exactly what it's doing. Everything just... works. Bookmarks, tabs, windows, text selection, drag-and-drop, printing, options...
Here's a few things I like about Firefox.
Ridiculously extensible
Mozilla's official archive contains over 60,000 add-ons that have, collectively, been downloaded over 2.5 billion times. Firefox is built on an extremely extensible framework that allows add-ons to do almost anything; a small sample:
Adblock Plus - Ad-blocker.
DownloadThemAll! - Download accelerator and bulk downloader; lets you download entire batches of links at once, with advanced filtering and naming patterns.
Debate Copy - Adds a variety of functions for debate research, like autocopy, keyboard shortcuts, formatting tools, and site extenders.
FireGestures - Adds Opera-style mouse gestures to Firefox.
FoxReplace - Find & replace text on a webpage.
Zotero - An elaborate tool for organizing and tracking academic research.
Other browsers have add-ons, but for sheer number and quality, Firefox wins hands down.
Lots of features: a sampling
Download manager: Firefox's internal download manager is very nice. You can easily start, stop, and pause multiple downloads, track progress, and search past files. If your computer unexpectedly crashes mid-download, you probably won't even have to restart it - the download will pick up right where it left off.
Excellent session restore: Firefox's session restore is one of the most polished. You can close Firefox, go away, come back, and open it again, and all your tabs, windows, downloads, and half-completed sentences will be right where you left them.
Synchronization: Chrome and Opera can synchronize your bookmarks across multiple devices. Firefox goes further: It can synchronize everything, even your open tabs. You can seamlessly jump between computers mid-research and have all your tabs, bookmarks, and add-ons waiting for you.
Security: Firefox includes a variety of interesting security features. For example, it shows you site-verification credentials, automatically virus-scans downloads, warns about malware and phishing sites, prevents information tracking by advertisers, and allows you to easily erase cookies and other data by time or specific sites. While most of these features can be found in other browsers as well, some are unique to Firefox.
Built-in RSS reader: Firefox has very good RSS integration. You can easily subscribe to a site with Google Reader, a desktop reader, or even the built-in feed reader in Firefox.
A polished interface
I could list all the nice things about the Firefox interface here, but instead I'll just point to all my complaints about the other browsers above and say "it doesn't do that." 
A few points are worth mentioning, though:
Stuff just works: The Firefox team spent a good deal of time looking at how people tried to do things, and designed the interface to accommodate them. There are often multiple ways to do common tasks, so you don't have to hunt around for the "right" way - you just do it. I have a few gripes with the default placement of some buttons, but it's easy to change things if you don't like them.
Bookmarks done right: Firefox's bookmark handling was my clear favorite. Everything behaves in a natural, obvious way: You can create bookmarks and bookmark folders several different ways, and drag and drop bookmarks wherever you want. Bookmark folders are powerful but not cluttered, and you can add separator lines to keep everything looking nice (yay!)
Tabs done right:
- The tab bar is nice and wide, and tabs scroll before they get too small to read. You can easily scan through the tabs with the mouse wheel, search them from the Awesome Bar, or even see them all on a dropdown menu.
- The tab bar is right up against the top of the screen, so you can easily flick your mouse up and find it without having to aim carefully. The tabs are also large enough to click easily, without taking up too much space.
- Tab placement is intelligent (like Chrome, but better.) New links open right next to the current tab, so you don't have to search around for them; bookmarks open at the end of the list. The tab bar automatically scrolls around to keep recently-opened tabs in view.
The only tab feature I miss from Chrome is constant-sizing. Chrome won't change the size of the tabs until you move your mouse away from them, so you can close a lot of tabs in a row without having to re-orient your mouse as they change size. Nice, but not essential. UPDATE: The new Firefox 5 now includes this feature. Yay!
Awesome Bar and context-sensitive options: The URL bar (aka the Awesome Bar) does a lot more than just store URLs: it also searches Google, bookmarks, history, and open tabs, and you can assign special tags and shortcuts for additional options. Similarly, the search box can automatically show Google's search suggestions. Other browsers include similar features, but Firefox is one of the most polished.
The bottom line: A few eccentricities aside, Firefox is an excellent research platform, with solid features and an efficient, refined interface.
2AR Bingo! cards
Have fun at Nationals. (printable version)
Note: Obviously, the instructions to shout "BINGO!" in the middle of the speech should not be taken literally, at least at actual tournaments. Doing the wave, however, is recommended.
A realistic view of kritiks
First off, apologies for this post being late - I've been too busy butchering Spanish verb tenses and making Factsmith awesome to finish it on time. Anyhow, here it is.
Conventionally, discussions about kritiks revolve around two main areas:
- The theoretical legitimacy of kritiks.
- Whether kritiks are good for the educational quality of debate.
This post is not about either. This post is about how to win with a kritik - specifically, what kinds of kritiks work with what kinds of judges.
These aren't hard and fast rules, of course; every judge is different. But hopefully, they'll help you think about what the judge is looking for in a new light. 
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a kritik: "Kritiks" are basically arguments about the mindsets and attitudes of the other team's case; a kritik argues that voting for the case would endorse its bad mindset. For example, if a case is based on the idea that women are unfit to serve in the military, the Negative might hypothetically kritik it for promoting gender bias. Etc.
Three types of kritiks
Principles kritiks. These are kritiks based on core, common principles - like justice, democracy, etc. For example, if the Affirmative's plan would deny heath insurance to minorities, the Negative could quite justifiably run a racism kritik. Generally speaking, if most people agree that the mindset in question is bad, it's a principles kritik.
Fluffy kritiks. These are kritiks based on fluffy ideas that most people don't care about. A good example would be "deep ecology", which argues against treating nature as a separate "thing" that can be "solved" with human ingenuity.
The only real difference between principles kritiks and fluffy kritiks is in how generally the subject is believed to be bad. If most people only care about it in an abstract, philosophical way, it's a fluffy kritik.
Plan-world kritiks. These are "kritiks" based on the type of decisionmaking the plan will supposedly endorse in the real world. For example, the Negative might argue that passing a hypocritical plan will make the government more likely to be hypocritical in the future.
(To be clear, so theory nuts don't kill me: plan-world kritiks aren't actually kritiks, they're just disadvantages with funky links. However, in practice, most judges will handle them the same way in-round, so I figured I should discuss them here.)
Three types of judges
Community. Community judges don't generally vote on theoretical arguments. Kritiks are a theoretical argument. Therefore, community judges don't generally vote on kritiks. Right?
Not exactly. Think of the last time you got a ballot like...
"I was convinced of the benefits of the plan, but I just don't think we should be spending more money in a recession."
"Judge bias"? That's basically the judge voting on a kritik that they made up themselves. Community judges vote on mindsets all the time - but only if they agree with them. Principles kritiks like racism are fair game. Fluffy ecological kritiks, not so much.
Parent/alumni. One might expect parent and alumni judges to be more receptive to kritiks than community judges, but that's actually a bit misleading. Parents have a fairly good understanding of what is and isn't a valid argument, so they'll often disregard mindset arguments as "not a real argument" or subject to personal bias ("well, I think the plan is racist, but that's my personal opinion, which I shouldn't bring into the round.")
Generally, however, principles kritiks will go down well if make a point to emphasize "this is an actual argument". Fluffy kritiks don't tend to get much traction - unless the judge understands and accepts the theory behind kritiks, in which case they are...
Übernerdflowjudge9000. You know the type. Former-NFL debaters; coaches; fifth-year alumni; the ones who come in with a dedicated flowpad and four different colored pens. You get about what you'd expect: kritik away!
Interestingly, I've noticed that theory-savvy judges don't tend to do as well with plan-world kritiks, because they treat them as true disadvantages. True disadvantages require solid links and impacts, which aren't usually present in plan-world kritiks.
A similar effect holds true for principles kritiks. A theory-savvy judge may expect you to have specific impacts, instead of just saying "racism is bad" and moving on.
Putting it all together
Here's a simple chart that summarizes all the discussion above:
This can be boiled down to three basic rules:
- Legitimate principles kritiks are fair game.
- Don't run "fluffy" kritiks unless you have a nerd judge.
- Keep plan-world "kritiks" realistic.
Extend-o-tron 5000: An extremely unrelated side note
A random strategy tip that came to mind as I was writing this post; take it or leave it:
One "fluffy" kritik that occasionally comes up is the Cap K - or, basically, a kritik of capitalism. A fairly effective way to beat this (at least with non-theory-savvy judges) is to rhapsodize about the market forces behind the building you're debating in, contrasted to the alternatives (socialism, etc.) Highlight the massive number of "moving parts" that the markets automatically handle:
"Let's take the hinges on the door. Someone had to design it; someone had to run the mining machinery, and the transportation machinery, and the smelting machinery, and the hinge-putting together machinery, and someone had to design all that machinery. That's not including the design and manufacture of the millions of other parts involved in the manufacturing and selling process. All the people involved did that for money - because of capitalism. All the services and goods are part of a complex web of supply and demand that automatically sets the ideal prices for everything, based on what people are willing to pay. Imagine how difficult and inefficient the whole process would be if we had to design it from the top down, without the profit incentive." (Et cetera.)
Is this a legitimate response? Not really. Does it work? Yes.
Clarity-In-A-Box: One easy trick to better delivery
When I first started debating, my view of delivering a good argument was pretty minimalistic. Everybody just makes it up as they go; good speakers are just a whole lot better at making it up as they go. The only way to get good at delivering arguments is to practice a lot. Right?
Not exactly. Here's the trick: You don't have to make it up as you go. "Good arguments" have a very recognizable form and content; if you can discover and emulate that form, much of the delivery will take care of itself. This post is about how to do that.
The Apocalypse Structure
The Apocalypse Structure is a basic four-point sequence of the key elements of an argument:
- Link - What argument you're responding to, in a few words.
- Response - What your argument is, in a few words.
- Warrants - Why the judge should believe this.
- Impact - Why the judge should vote on this.
Whenever you don't know in advance exactly how to deliver your point, use this structure.
Defaulting to this structure has huge advantages over just making it up on the fly. First, by having a set pattern, you won't have to worry about what to say next - once you've finished one point, move on to the next. This makes the flow of your speech a lot smoother. Second, by thinking of each component as a distinct element, you're less likely to accidentally leave out key parts like the response tag or impact.
Third, everything comes in the order judges expect. Instead of struggling to flow a disconnected series of facts, they get the core message up front, followed by the exposition - the way that's easiest to follow. The end result sounds a lot clearer and more organized than just jumbling everything together on the fly.
But won't using the same structure for every argument sound repetitive? Not really. Everyday language is filled with specific patterns and protocols, but we don't notice them because information is being conveyed. Unless you're using the exact same set of words for every argument, it won't sound awkward - just clear. Remember, you don't have to say "Point 1 is the link..." - just say the content and move on.
The necessary information: The link & response
These two points are key, so don't shortchange them.
The first is the link, which is straightforward. This is basically a short summary of what you're responding to. They key word here is short. You don't want to waste time or make your opponent's argument for them, so keep your summary very brief, bland, and factual. "Under Solvency 2, they claimed that our plan requires the abolition of the Federal Reserve." Etc.
Now, the response. Key thing to remember: the response is not your whole argument. It's just a short summary of your argument. You'll explain the specifics in the next point - for now, you just want to give the judge something to write down. For example:
"This is false, because illegal immigrants pay sales taxes." (rebuttal)
"If you pass this plan, it will be harder to win the war in Afghanistan." (disadvantage)
"This won't work because it requires technology that doesn't exist yet." (solvency point)
This point shouldn't take more than a sentence - the shorter, the better. Remember, you're trying to give the judge something to write down and remember, so an epic masterpiece the length of War and Peace is counterproductive.
Because I said so! The warrants
The "warrants" are the logic and evidence that back up your claim. For example, if your response is "historical precedent disproves this", you might have an evidence card describing comparable past events. You know what to do.
On occasion, you may be able to skip the warrants if they're self-contained in the response tag (like "we never said that", "this evidence is out of date", etc.)
Leave a crater: The impact
This is Barringer Crater in Arizona:
This is what happens when a 50-meter hunk of metal has an unexpected encounter with Planet Earth while traveling at 30,000 miles per hour.
Before it hit the ground, the Barringer object was just another meteoroid - one of thousands of random objects floating around in the middle of a whole lot of nothing. Throwing an argument at the other team is like creating a meteoroid. By itself, it's interesting, but it's not immediately important. Your job is to show the judge a picture of the crater.
That's the impact: Tell the judge exactly why your argument matters. Do not forget to do this. It's easy to stop after the warrants, assuming that you've made your point. That might be enough for pure flow judges, but the average judge votes on what points they "get", not just what points you "made". So impact.
What makes a good impact? Let me quickly digress and talk about the ladder of abstraction.
The ladder of abstraction is a term that describes the range from general (encompassing a lot of subparts) to very specific. For example, "farm assets" is very high on the ladder of abstraction. "The tractor engine" is very low. To use the example to the left, "economy hurt" is a very general, abstract concept; "the judge can't fix their broken car" is a very specific, low-level concept.
A typical "impact" I hear is usually something like: "Judge! If you don't vote for this plan, people will die from pollution!" That's powerful, but not as powerful as it could be. "People dying" is a fairly abstract idea; it has punch, but no more than a news announcer casually reading a death toll for a tornado in Iowa. The best impacts are lower on the ladder of abstraction. Vague death tolls suddenly become much more relevant when you point out that one of the victims could be the judge's kid.
Be specific, be powerful.
(I expect this will be covered in more detail in a future post, but if you want some additional reading in the meantime, check out Thomas Umstattd's fantastic presentation on this subject here.)
Conclusion
Making everything up as you go is like reinventing the wheel every time you want to design a car - it just makes everything harder than it needs to be. Why start from scratch when you already know what works?
Structure isn't everything, but it's a good part of everything. If you use the standard four-point layout above, the other parts will be a lot easier.
Parametrics: A response to Isaiah McPeak (part 2)
Part 2 (or part 5, if you're counting that way) in my parametrics discussion with the incomparable Isaiah McPeak of Ethos. Because we all love quasi-useful theory debates.
Before reading, make sure you've read the original parametrics post, Isaiah's first response, my response to Isaiah, and Isaiah's second response. (That's over 7,000 words - w00t!)
Occam's razor, redux: No unnecessary leprechauns!
(Note: My examples for the remainder of this post will relate to topical counterplans. I realize that topical counterplans are not the point of parametrics, but in practice, they're the only part that matters in-round, and they're an easy place to see the logic in action. Bear with me here.)
In my response, I referenced Occam's razor as my justification for rejecting parametrics. Isaiah objected to this, saying:
. . . the statement that “we should reject parametrics automatically as an unnecessary layer of complexity” still smacks of “rejecting” parametrics, rather than saying “don’t USE parametrics because there is no need”. I find it humorous to see Occam’s razor as a reason to “reject” anything. Occam’s razor isn’t a reason to reject, it is a reason to ignore/not use.
The problem is that parametrics isn't something you apply on a case-by-case basis: it's either true or it isn't. Because of this, "not using" it is more or less equivalent to "rejecting" it.
Running a theory argument is essentially the same as pointing out a logical fallacy: you're saying "X is not a logically valid reason to vote." For example, fiat says "'that won't happen' isn't a logically sound reason to vote against a plan", topicality says "nontopical plans aren't a logically sound reason to vote for the resolution", etc. Parametrics is the same way: it's a reason why topical counterplans are a logically valid reason to vote against the resolution.
Since it's a logical argument, if parametrics isn't true, topical counterplans are never a reason to vote against the resolution. You can't apply it on a case-by-case basis.
Wikipedia states:
It is coherent to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.
WITHOUT LEPRECHAUNS
Premise 1: Endorsing the resolution means the judge should vote Affirmative.
Premise 2: Running a "topical counterplan" endorses the resolution. (By definition.)
Conclusion: If a topical counterplan is run, the judge should vote Affirmative.
We can destroy this logic by inserting an extra premise, leprechauns:
WITH LEPRECHAUNS
Premise 1: Endorsing the resolution means the judge should vote Affirmative.
ARBITRARY EXTRA PREMISE: Mischievous leprechauns change the resolution after the 1AC, just because they feel like it.
Premise 2: Running a "topical counterplan" endorses the resolution. (INVALID)
Conclusion: If a topical counterplan is run, the judge should vote Affirmative. (INVALID)
WITHOUT PARAMETRICS
Premise 1: Endorsing the resolution means the judge should vote Affirmative.
Premise 2: Running a "topical counterplan" endorses the resolution. (By definition.)
Conclusion: If a topical counterplan is run, the judge should vote Affirmative.
We can destroy this logic by inserting an extra premise, parametrics:
WITH PARAMETRICS
Premise 1: Endorsing the resolution means the judge should vote Affirmative.
ARBITRARY EXTRA PREMISE: We redefine the resolution to be just the Affirmative plan, just because we feel like it.
Premise 2: Running a "topical counterplan" endorses the resolution. (INVALID)
Conclusion: If a topical counterplan is run, the judge should vote Affirmative. (INVALID)
Yes, we could use leprechauns to defend topical counterplans. But unless there's a particularly pressing reason to, we shouldn't. Likewise, we could use parametrics to defend topical counterplans. But unless there's a particularly pressing reason to, we shouldn't.
Does parametrics correct injustices?
But what if there is a "particularly pressing need?" Both Isaiah and I agree that the popular argument - offtopic disadvantages - is not a justification for parametrics. In his last post, however, he raised a new point:
Suppose the Government team abolishes our nuclear stockpile, and the Opposition reduces it instead. Both the Government and the Opposition could theoretically be construed as "significantly reforming policy towards Russia." . . . So the affirmative does some wordplay and spends its time on dictionary definitions of the word “reform” instead of comparing the benefits of abolishing over reducing (which is a fair, reasonable, and should be expected debate) . . . Given that [the] negative ran a CP, parametrics is a great argument here to focus the debate back on the substantive issues.
There are two problems with this.
First, just because something is important doesn't mean we should talk about it in-round. (The situation in Libya is important, but we shouldn't be discussing it in a round about, say, tax reform.) That's the whole point of the resolution - to narrow the ground of discussion. Reduction vs. abolition feels like a worthwhile, "substantive" issue, but it's not what the resolution is about. The resolution asks us: "should we reform our policy towards Russia?" Not: "how should we reform our policy towards Russia?"
I could run an unrelated Affirmative plan about Africa, and it might be important, but it's not relevant. Likewise, I could run a topical counterplan, and it might be important, but it's not relevant. It doesn't fall under the resolution-appointed topic of discussion.
The argument above essentially says, "well, let's change the resolution then." (That's basically what parametrics does.) But this is a slippery slope. If "being important" is enough to justify changing the resolution, we should do away with the resolution entirely, so we can talk about any important issue we want. That's ridiculous.
If you want to keep the debate substantial... just don't run a topical counterplan.
Second, there are many cases where introducing parametrics does not have a good outcome. For example, the Negative could get up and propose a counterplan that is identical to the Affirmative's plan, except with one mandate slightly changed. (This is common in other leagues.) As a result, the entire round winds up being a completely superfluous discussion of implementation details, instead of actual argumentation about whether the plan is a good idea.
People have been arguing about whether topical counterplans improve debate for years. The only answer everyone can agree on is "we don't really know." Until there's no particularly pressing reason to insert the arbitrary premise of parametrics into debate... we shouldn't.
No unnecessary leprechauns!
Coming Thursday: How to instantly improve your organization and clarity with one easy trick.
Parametrics: A response to Isaiah McPeak (part 1)
Some months back I wrote a lengthy post laying out my objections to parametric theory. This past Saturday, the fascinating Isaiah McPeak of Ethos Publications (makers of the Ethos sourcebook) posted a response defending parametric theory and offering some additional advice on topical counterplans. This is my response to his response.
This is an ongoing discussion, so you'll want to read my original parametrics post and Isaiah's response before diving into this post.
Missing the point: The failure of the standard argument
In his response, Isaiah goes to great lengths to explain exactly why affirming the resolution does not require affirming every possible example of the resolution. He concludes by stating:
As you argue later, “All three frameworks discussed so far have been based off of the assumption that voting for the entire resolution endorses every possible plan.” Since I have challenged this assumption, the rest of your arguments kind of fall.
I must admit that I'm somewhat puzzled by this, because he's making the exact same argument I am. In very next paragraph after the one he quoted, I argue that voting for the entire resolution does not endorse every possible plan. In fact, this argument is the reason I reject parametrics: if one example is enough to affirm the resolution, why do we need to narrow it down to the Affirmative plan? Parametrics is simply unnecessary.
I suspect the confusion arises from the structure of my original post. I spend the first half of it explaining the standard (flawed) arguments for parametrics, before turning around and explaining why it's wrong in "What everyone misses: The requirement of the resolution." This structure makes sense from a teaching standpoint, but it can be confusing if you don't read the entire thing.
Occam's razor and the parametric beard
Occam's razor is often stated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (although these exact words do not appear in any of his works.) Basically, explanations shouldn't be more complicated than they need to be. Wikipedia gives a good example:
It is coherent to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.
A similar principle applies to debate theory: Don't go for a complicated paradigm when a simple one works just as well. My personal rule - The Resolutional Bludgeon - states:
If you can resolve a problem with the resolution alone, do it.
In this case, since the resolution alone is enough to explain the proper behavior of teams in the round, we should reject parametrics automatically as an unnecessary layer of complexity.
Why prefer the resolution, though? Occam's razor again. If we go for another paradigm, we have to add in the resolution to explain topicality, et cetera. The resolution alone is much simpler than an alternate paradigm plus the resolution. Preferring it tends towards maximum simplicity.
Parametrics in parliamentary
At this point, it would seem that we are almost in agreement - there's nothing inherently wrong with the standard rezcentrism framework. Isaiah seems to believe that parametrics is necessary anyway. His primary argument for this stems from parliamentary debate:
As an experienced parli debater, I’ve used parametrics quite a few times and seen the application from resolutions like “mute the red phone” where you really need parametrics because every negative counterplan could potentially be construed to “mute the red phone”.
This would be a persuasive argument for the application of parametrics - if "mute the red phone" was, in fact, a policy resolution. It's not.
Earlier, Isaiah makes this point for me:
The phrasing of policy vs. value ... has different logic requirements. A value resolution is usually phrased “x value is greater than y value”. Here the “sum total” must be taken into consideration, so that an aff or neg wins by proving the rez is more true than false or more false than true. The phrasing of a policy resolution “X policy body should be changed” does not require proof that MORE policies should be changed than not, but merely that one should be changed ...
I would contend that "mute the red phone" has different logic requirements as well. While it implies a policy action, the resolution is intentionally vague and subjective. (It's a metaphor, not a specific range of policy options.)
To put this visually, policy resolutions are commonly depicted as a circle containing a range of options. Metaphor resolutions are more like a blob:
Some actions (like physically muting an actual red phone) are clearly topical. Other actions (like unilaterally abolishing our nuclear stockpile) are also clearly topical, but in a more vague, metaphorical way (you're not literally "muting" a red phone, just getting rid of it and what it controls.) Still other actions (like abolishing duck hunting) might also be topical, but only under extremely broad interpretations of the resolution.
All this means that, even if parametrics is necessary for vague parliamentary resolutions, that doesn't automatically make it necessary for not-so-vague policy resolutions.
I don't actually believe that parametrics is necessary for metaphor resolutions - you can achieve the same results with straight-up topicality. With any resolution - especially vague ones - there's a fuzzy continuum between "clearly topical" and "clearly nontopical". Where exactly the "topical/nontopical" dividing line falls in that continuum can be hotly contested in the round. The exact same standards and brightlines used to argue that a Government plan is nontopical can be used to argue that a counterplan is nontopical.
To illustrate how this works, suppose the Government team abolishes our nuclear stockpile, and the Opposition reduces it instead. Both the Government and the Opposition could theoretically be construed as "muting the red phone". What now? Argue topicality! For example, the Opposition could present the standard that, to "mute" something, you have to completely eliminate its effectiveness; reductions don't eliminate effectiveness, so the Opp isn't "muting the red telephone." (Cue reasons-to-prefer.) Problem solved, with pure topicality.
All this is to say that metaphor resolutions in parli don't justify parametrics in TP.
Why does this matter?
As I've said before, parametrics isn't about topical counterplans - that's just a side effect. It's the most noticeable side effect, however, and arguably the most important in the real world.
You might notice that I haven't delved into the pragmatic issues surrounding whether topical counterplans are "good" for debate. The short answer is "I don't know" - I can see persuasive arguments on both sides (see Isaiah's post for a good listing.)
Under the resolutional framework, however, running a topical counterplan logically leads to an Aff win, and whether or not topical counterplans are "good" doesn't change that. If topical counterplans were clearly the best thing since sliced bread, it might be worth creating an exception in our framework, but the issue isn't that clear.
Note: I'm using the term "topical counterplan" here, even though I realize that "topical" counterplans aren't technical "topical" under the parametrics framework... don't kill me, HSD.
A side issue...
In my original post, I used "morally-difficult plans like banning abortion" as an example of arguments that were banned simply because they were abusive, not because of a specific logical framework. Isaiah took issue with this:
I hotly disagree with this assumption. ALL positive good on a policy level has at its root a moral premise. The skill of debate is CHARACTERIZED by learning to break seemingly tough problems into respective pieces (i.e. don’t argue “stealing babies is good”, argue “their plan doesn’t fix the problem”). From this perspective, all cases have morality at the root and a debater would be gaining little from Stoa/NCFCA debate if not learning to navigate the complexities of why we do what we do.
I'm not going to argue this, because it's completely beside the point. My original argument was simply that some things are inherently disallowed, even without a complex theoretical framework. (Punching your opponent in the face, as a less controversial example.) Whether or not abortion plans fall into this category is irrelevant to the logic of the point.
Regardless, there is a theoretical framework that works in this case - the resolution. We don't need to declare offtopic DAs "inherently disallowed", or parametricized away, to have a rational debate.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
The Epic Formatting Post
I wasn't quite sure whether to make this an introduction for newbies, or a technical reference manual, so I decided to make it both. The resulting monstrosity is probably the only document in existence that includes both technical descriptions of font readability and a giant mecha.
Written by quasi-request of several people, who probably regret ever bringing up the subject.
Semi-related note: Factsmith 1.1 was just released, which is part of the reason this post is late. Easier collaboration, access dates, automatic updates, etc. Get it while it's hot.
PART ZERO: FOR THE NEWBIES
All of this is going to sound a lot more complicated than it really is (I really love technical details.) In fact, if you get Factsmith (see Part 2), you can pretty much ignore everything else in this post, but you might want to read it anyway to understand the reasoning behind what Factsmith does.
Otherwise, the most important sections are Parts 1 and 2, and the Extend-o-tron at the end.
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
Why format?
Answer: You format to win. Strange as it sounds, a well-formatted brief will help you win.
We format briefs for the same reason that we cut quotes instead of just printing the entire article out: It makes the evidence easier to handle. If your taglines and dates always look the same, and are always in the same place, you'll be able to find them much faster in-round than if you have to read through the whole document to find them.
Speed wins rounds. Formatting means speed. Ergo, formatting wins rounds.
Rule Number 1: Visual distinction
Taglines should look a certain way, citations should look a certain way, quotes should look a certain way. Basically, everything that serves a purpose should have a distinctive appearance.
Associating a specific look with a specific type of content allows your eyes to jump directly to where you want to go without having to read all the text. Taglines are a good example. If all the text looks the same, you have to read it all to find the taglines; if taglines have a specific appearance, you can just find the next piece of text that looks "like that" and read it.
There are a number of properties that contribute to an element's visual style:
- Font size - making text larger or smaller.
- Text decoration - Bold, italic, and underlined text all looks different. Note that italic looks a lot closer to normal text than bold does, so making text italic may not be the only distinction needed (see the citation in the example above.)
- Text location - placing text in different locations on the page, like centering it. In the case of items like page numbers that are always in the same place on the page, this may be the only distinction needed.
- Spacing - separating a block of text by putting blank space on one or more of its sides (as in the citation shown above, which has a blank line below it.)
- Font typeface - this is a weak effect, since most readable fonts look fairly similar, but it can be useful when combined with other properties.
Sub-elements should also be visually distinguished. For example, you could always put the article title in quotes, as above. It's a subtle difference, but if makes it easier to quickly find the title in the citation.
Rule Number 2: Consistency, consistency, consistency
Every element of the same type needs to have the same look - every time. Without consistency, most of the benefits of visual distinction are lost - your brain has a much harder time recognizing what an element is without reading it.
In Soviet Russia... consistency formats YOU. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
When I say "the same look", I mean "exactly the same look." It's easy to be lazy and settle for things looking "about right". Take a little time to make everything look perfect - it'll make things easier for you in-round. Plus, psychologically, potential traders won't think as highly of your briefs if they're sloppily formatted.
...and the rest is up to you
As long as your elements are visually distinct and consistent, what they look like is entirely a matter of personal preference. I'll cover some technical recommendations in Part 3, but basically, if you like the way it looks, go with it.
PART 2: HOW-TO
Pictured: Cheating.
Cheating with Factsmith
If you do any amount of research on a Windows computer, stop reading this post and go download a copy of Factsmith. I'll wait for you.
Back? Okay, now I'll explain what you just installed on your computer. Factsmith is a free research software package that basically does all your formatting for you. Instead of copying and pasting lots of text, you can just pull everything together with easy drag-and-drop and have Factsmith turn it into a beautiful document, ready for the printer.
Cheating? Probably. Worth it? Yes.
Factsmith isn't the only software designed for debate research - it's just the one I'm obligated to support, by virtue of, you know, writing it. I do think it's probably the best, though, and right now it's the only one being actively updated (albeit infrequently.)
The two other research packages to look into are Evidence Scribe, which comes in two flavors (desktop and web-based), and the formatting tools built into Blue Book Report. You can see a comprehensive feature comparison here. Another tool to look into is Debate Synergy, a complex set of Word extensions designed for NFL/collegiate debate.
If you're new to Factsmith and want to take it for a spin, here's a link to the quickstart guide. In the meantime, I'll keep talking about formatting the manual way.
Necessary software
To process words... you need a word processor. (Even if you're using Factsmith or a similar tool. You'll still need one to view and print the resulting briefs.) You probably already have one.
'"Uncle Cosmo, why do they call it a word processor?"
"It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what a food processor does to food, right?"
- Shoe
I could offer a detailed comparison of the competing products, but I'll just say that if you don't already have Microsoft Word or Pages, snag a copy of OpenOffice.org. It's totally free, and does everything an ordinary debater would ever need their word processor to do. (It's popular, too - the latest version has been downloaded almost 100 million times.)
For the rest of this post I'll be assuming you're using either OpenOffice or Microsoft Word.
Side note: Google Docs is great for collaboration, but isn't so good for formatting because it lacks a lot of page layout features. For this reason, I recommend doing final formatting in another word processor, instead of printing directly off of Google Docs.
Basic formatting functions
(Experienced debaters can probably skip this section.)
Doing basic formatting in OpenOffice
Most of the common formatting tasks are done with the main formatting toolbar (at the top of the screen by default.) It looks like this:
The options are, left to right: Select font, select text size, toggle bold, toggle italic, toggle underline, left-justify, center-justify, right-justify, full-justify, numbered list, bullet points, decrease indent, increase indent, select color, highlighter, select background color.
To change the formatting of some text, select it with the mouse (click and drag so the background behind it changes color.) Then click the button you want. For example, to change the font, select the text, click the font box on the left, and click the font you want. To make text bold, select the text, and click the "B" button. (Click it again to remove bold.)
The best way to figure out how everything works is just to play with it a bunch. There are also keyboard shortcuts for most of these, if you like that sort of thing.
More advanced formatting can be done by selecting the text you want, clicking the Format menu, and clicking "Character...". A window will pop up with several tabs and various options. Formatting that applies to the whole line of text (like spacing, indentation, etc.) can be done by clicking the Format menu and clicking "Paragraph..."; a similar window will appear. Again, playing with it is the best way to learn.
(Note: You can also access the Character and Paragraph windows by right-clicking the selected text and clicking Character or Paragraph on the popup menu.)
Doing basic formatting in Microsoft Word
Most of the common formatting tasks are done with the main formatting toolbar, on the Home tab of the ribbon at the top. It looks like this:
The options are, from left to right, top to bottom: Select font, select text size, increase text size, decrease text size, remove formatting, bullet points, numbered list, multilevel numbered list, decrease indent, increase indent, sort, show/hide special formatting marks. Bold, italic, underline, strikeout, subscript, superscript, select case, select color, highlighter, left-justify, center-justify, right-justify, full-justify, change spacing, select background color, create table. (You can see what each button does by putting your mouse cursor over it and waiting for a moment.)
To change the formatting of some text, select it with the mouse (click and drag so the background behind it changes color.) Then click the button you want. For example, to change the font, select the text, click the font box on the left, and click the font you want. To make text bold, select the text, and click the "B" button. (Click it again to remove bold.)
The best way to figure out how everything works is just to play with it a bunch. There are also keyboard shortcuts for most of these, if you like that sort of thing.
More advanced formatting can be done by selecting the text you want, right-clicking it, and clicking "Font...". A window will pop up with several tabs and various options. Formatting that applies to the whole line of text (like spacing, indentation, etc.) can be done by right-clicking and clicking "Paragraph..."; a similar window will appear. Again, playing with it is the best way to learn.
Easier formatting with paragraph styles and templates
Case-by-case formatting, as described above, is simple and easy-to-understand, but there is a better way. Enter paragraph styles.
Paragraph styles allow you to pre-define sets of formatting options, and apply them to an element with a single click. Even better, if you decide you want to change the way (say) your citations look, you don't have to go through and manually reformat them all - you can just change the paragraph style, and everything set to it will change too. Magic!
Both Word and OpenOffice come with a number of pre-defined styles; I'll explain how to use them first, before explaining how to make your own.
Using paragraph styles
In OpenOffice, the fastest way to set the style of a paragraph is to click on it and select the style you want from the style dropdown to the left of the formatting bar (pictured, right.) The style dropdown doesn't display all available styles, just ones that you use in the document, plus some extra common ones. (To see the full list, click the button to the left, and the "Styles and Formatting" window will appear. You might have to set the dropdown at the bottom to "All Styles" to find what you're looking for.)
In Microsoft Word, the interface is a little more complicated. Word displays the top few styles in a panel on the Home tab of the ribbon:
If the panel shows the style you want to apply, click the paragraph and click on the appropriate style in the panel. If not, click the small button on the lower left of "Change Styles" (the bottom one in the row of three.) More styles will appear. Click the one you want.
Creating paragraph styles
What if the default styles don't look the way you want? Change them, or make new ones.
In OpenOffice:
To modifying an existing style: The fastest way is to find a paragraph that's set to the style you want, right-click it, and click "Edit Paragraph Style..." from the popup menu. Alternatively, you can open the "Styles and Formatting" box by clicking the button to the left of the style selector, find the style you want, right-click it, and click Modify.
To create a new style: Open the "Styles and Formatting" box by clicking the button to the left of the style selector. Click on the button on the far right (the one with the little green plus sign.) Click "New Style from Selection" on the popup menu, type in a name for the style, and click "OK". (The new style will start off with the formatting of the current paragraph.)
In both cases, a window will appear with lots and lots of formatting options. Customize them to your liking, and click OK.
In Microsoft Word:
To modify an existing style: Find the style you want on the styles panel, like you were going to apply it. Right-click it, and click "Modify". A window will appear with lots of formatting options. Alternatively, you can find a paragraph that's set to the style you want and make formatting changes to it manually. Then right-click it, click "Styles" from the popup menu, and click "Update [stylename] to Match Selection".
To create a new style: Format a paragraph the way you want the style to look, right-click it, and click Styles from the popup menu. Then click "Save Selection as New Quick Style...". Type in a name for the new style, and click OK.
You'll want to create styles for section headers, taglines, citations, and evidence quotes, at minimum. You'll probably want your section headers and taglines to be modified versions of Heading 1 and Heading 2, respectively, to make tables of contents easier (see Part 3, Table of contents.)
Templates
Recreating your paragraph styles every time you create a new brief is annoying. Instead, create a template - basically, a blank brief with all the paragraph styles, headers, footers, tables of contents, etc. already added. Save this somewhere and make a copy of it when you want to create a new brief, instead of making everything from scratch.
Alternatively, you can add your document as an "official" template that appears on the list when you create a new document. The process is a little complicated, so I'll just link to instructions for OpenOffice and Microsoft Word.
Keyboard shortcuts
Here's a neat trick most people don't know about: You can assign keyboard shortcuts to paragraph styles, so when you press (for example) Alt+F9, the current paragraph is set to the "Citation" style. This is much faster than hunting around in the styles display.
Tip: In Microsoft Word, the preset Heading 1, Heading 2, and Heading 3 styles are already set to Alt+Ctrl+1, Alt+Ctrl+2, and Alt+Ctrl+3, respectively. In OpenOffice, it's Ctrl+1, Ctrl+2, and Ctrl+3.
To set a keyboard shortcut in OpenOffice, click the Tools menu, and then Customize. A window will appear; click the Keyboard tab. Find the keyboard shortcut you want in the long list at the top, and click on it. Next, scroll down to the bottom of the "Category" list, and double-click "Styles". Click Paragraph. Find the style you want in the middle list (Function), and click on it. Finally, click the Modify button in the upper right part of the window, and click OK.
To set a keyboard shortcut in Microsoft Word, follow this guide.
PART 3: ELEMENTS & CONCEPTS
Table of contents
In an ideal world, every brief would come pre-packaged with a genie to float above your head and tell you where everything is. Unfortunately, most briefs do not have genies, so you need a table of contents.
To add a table of contents in OpenOffice: Put the cursor where you want the table to go, click the Insert menu, and select Indexes and Tables. Then click Indexes and Tables again from the popout menu. A new window will appear. If you want, you can customize the table in this window, but it's not very intuitive, so you probably just want to click OK.
To add a table of contents in Microsoft Word: Put the cursor where you want the table to go, click the References tab in the ribbon, and click Table of Contents. Then click your desired style.
But how does the word processor know what to include in the table of contents? It uses paragraph styles. Text set to Heading 1 will be first-level entries, text set to Heading 2 will be second-level, and so on. To include an evidence card on the table of contents, just set its tagline to Heading 1 or Heading 2. (You can redefine the heading styles to match whatever you want your taglines to look like, as described in "Easier formatting with paragraph styles and templates" in the previous part.)
Note that the table of contents may not update automatically when you change taglines, but it should always update when you save or print. If this bothers you, you can force it to update manually (in Word: Click "Update table" on the References tab; in OpenOffice: Right-click the table and click "Update Index/Table".)
A related trick from Joseph Clarkson: The table of contents is an excellent place to mark your favorite arguments. Just mark them with a highlighter - you'll save a lot of time in-round.
Headers and footers
This picture actually exists.
Headers and footers are text and information that's automatically added to the top or bottom of every page - for example, if you wanted to have the phrase "WEASEL TUXEDO" at the bottom of every page.
To add headers or footers in OpenOffice: Click the Insert menu, then Header or Footer, and then Default. This will get you a blank field to put whatever you want in. To edit a header/footer later on, just click it.
To add headers or footers in Microsoft Word: Click on the Insert tab in the ribbon, click Header or Footer, and select the style of header you want. To edit a header/footer later-on, double-click it on the page.
There are two things that really need to go in the header/footer.
First, page numbers. Page numbers are pretty much a must - unless you are particularly fond of spending thirty minutes painstakingly resorting all your evidence after a round, of course. Even if you staple all your briefs, you still need page numbers to navigate off of the table of contents.
To add page numbers in OpenOffice: Put the cursor where you want to have the number and click the Insert menu, then Fields, then Page Number.
To add page numbers in Microsoft Word: Click on the Insert tab in the ribbon, click Page Number, and select where you want them to go from the dropdown menu.
Second, the brief title. If you don't staple your briefs, this is essential for after-round resorting. If you do staple your briefs, it's still nice to have the brief title on every page so you can riffle through a stack of briefs and find it without stopping to check the title pages. The brief title should always go in the header, since nine times out of ten you'll be looking at the top of briefs when you flip through them.
There are a couple of other things you may also want to put in the header, primarily your team name and club name. This way, if you lose your evidence, other teams can get it back to you - or, if they can't find you, they can get it back to a clubmate. Since you almost certainly have space, go ahead and add them.
Card splitting
Card splitting is when a piece of evidence crosses more than one page. This is bad, for reasons that will become obvious the first time you're reading a killer card and suddenly realize that the most important part of it is still back at the table.
There are two ways to ensure that cards stay on the same page:
Manual way: Page breaks
Basically, manually start a new page whenever a card would run over. There are two ways of starting a new page: inserting a page break, or pressing Enter a bunch of times to create blank space. I recommend page breaks, for several reasons.
To insert a page break: Hold down the Ctrl key and press Enter.
First, compatibility. Briefs will sometimes display slightly differently on different computers and word processors; for example, if the font is slightly different, the brief may require five blank lines instead of four to reach the next page. There are few things more annoying than frantically trying to print a brief on a hotel computer, only to discover that all your taglines are separated from the evidence. With page breaks, the computer automatically calculates how much space is necessary, so the worst you can get is an extra blank page.
Second, and related, ease of modification. All sorts of minor tweaks can change the amount of blank space necessary: changing a tagline, trimming a quote, decreasing the font size, etc. If you have to fill the space manually with blank lines, you have to do a lot more work, and you're more likely to mess up.
Automatic way: Paragraph locking
This is the best way if you're using paragraph styles. You can tell your word processor to keep specific paragraphs together, and it will automatically handle all the page breaks. To do this, edit your paragraph styles for taglines, citations, and quote text to set the following attributes:
In OpenOffice: On the Text Flow tab of the paragraph settings window, check "Do not split paragraph" and "Keep with next paragraph".
In Microsoft Word: On the Line and Page Breaks tab of the paragraph settings window, check "Keep lines together" and "Keep with next".
Each card will now lock together on one page.
Note that you need to have a gap between the evidence that does not have these attributes set, or the word processor will unsuccessfully try to keep the entire brief together on one page. (You could not set the "keep with next" option for the quote itself, but then multi-paragraph quotes will spill over pages. The best way is to simply have a blank line of Default style between each card.)
Fonts
There are two different types of fonts: Serif and sans-serif. Serif fonts have little extra strokes at the end of certain lines, like Times New Roman. Sans-serif fonts do not, like Arial. There is evidence that, on paper (not on a screen), serif fonts are easier to read than sans-serif fonts, so I recommend using a serif font for your quotes. Other elements are less important.
Examples of a few good, readable fonts:
I recommend using Times New Roman for most text, and whatever you prefer for "special" elements like sections and taglines, to taste. Go for whatever is most readable, and whatever you do, don't use Comic Sans. (I once saw a 1AC printed entirely in Comic Sans. I am not making this up. My eyes have only recently recovered.)
Text size
There is a lot of conflicting evidence about what size font is the most readable. It depends a lot on what font is used, who is reading it, and whether it's on paper or on a screen. Generally, however, there's a "sweet spot" between 10 and 14 points. I recommend 12-point font, for three reasons.
First, 14-point is not ideal for younger eyes. You won't notice much difference reading aloud, but when scanning a brief at the table, your eyes have to cover more ground. Since you won't have any trouble reading smaller text, there's no real advantage. Plus, it's not very space efficient.
Second, 10-point fonts don't work well in standard brief format. This is because of something called horizontal retrace, which is what your eyes do when they reach the end of a line and jump down to the next one. It gets harder to do this the longer the line is. With a 12-point font, each line has about 85 characters; with a 10-point font, you'll get up to 110. Thus, while small fonts can be easier to read in narrow columns, 12-point is a bit easier across a whole page.
Third, 12-point font is standard for almost all briefs and sourcebooks (except the Blue Book line). When trading briefs, the other party will probably be expecting 12-point font, so if you use something else, you may be giving them more or less than they expected.
Note: 12-point size may look a little different for different fonts. For example, Tahoma 10-point is only marginally smaller than Times New Roman 12-point.
Added material
OK, time for my personal crusade.
It's normal to add explanatory material (like full versions of acronyms) to quotes, in square brackets. For example:
"Researchers at USCN [University of South Central Nowhere] announced the shocking discovery yesterday."
The problem is, some quotes will contain text in brackets already. The normal solution to this is to add a note indicating which brackets were added. But there's a much better way: Italicize all added brackets; leave all original brackets unchanged. For example:
"Researchers [see 156] at USCN [University of South Central Nowhere] announced the shocking discovery yesterday."
The first set of brackets was in the original; the second was added. By using this system, you can see what was added at a glance, instead of hunting around in the citation.
Miscellanea
Tagline case
There Are Two Different Ways Of Capitalizing Your Taglines: Title Case (This Style) Or Sentence Case, Like Ordinary Written Sentences. Some People Prefer Title Case Because It Looks More Official, but I recommend writing taglines in sentence case like this. It's a lot easier to read.
TITLE CASE IS NOT THE HARDEST TO READ, OF COURSE; THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ALL-CAPS, LIKE THIS. Interestingly, early computers and teletypes only used capital letters, to cut down on the storage and processing power required. Nerd folklore has it that lowercase letters were initially favored for their readability, but were rejected when an executive pointed out that "it would be impossible to spell the name of the Deity correctly." (There is, alas, no evidence that this ever happened.)
Quote emphasis
It is normal to "highlight down" long quotes, and only read the most important parts of them. The normal way of doing this this simply to underline the parts you want to read. A few other ways you might want to experiment with:
- Bold instead of underline, bold with underline, or a thick underline.
- Shrinking the font size of everything that isn't underlined.
- Actual highlighting.
In my opinion, simple underlining gets you the best bang for your buck, with occasional font-shrinking if the quote is really long, but this is mostly just preference.
PART 4: EXTEND-O-TRON 5000
Template time! Yay!
For your enjoyment, I've attached several brief templates that you can use, peruse, modify, and mangle however you want. I recommend that newbies start with one of these, instead of trying to start from scratch.
I've included a few "dummy" cards in each to show how they're used. Click to download.
Snapdragon I (OpenOffice)
A basic, utilitarian 12-pt Times New Roman style with a focus on simplicity and readability. Official style of the COG sourcebook, and Factsmith's default style.
Snapdragon I (Microsoft Word)
A basic, utilitarian 12-pt Times New Roman style with a focus on simplicity and readability. Official style of the COG sourcebook, and Factsmith's default style.
Blue Book (OpenOffice)
Designed after the style used by the Blue Book, Monument Publishing's flagship sourcebook - with a table of contents and a few other improvements added.
Blue Book (Microsoft Word)
Designed after the style used by the Blue Book, Monument Publishing's flagship sourcebook - with a table of contents and a few other improvements added. (Note: the Word version doesn't look quite as good as the OpenOffice version.)
Evidence Scribe (OpenOffice)
Designed after Evidence Scribe's standard export style, with shaded citations, boxed headings, and a variety of fonts and sizes.
Evidence Scribe (Microsoft Word)
Designed after Evidence Scribe's standard export style, with shaded citations, boxed headings, and a variety of fonts and sizes.
About Daniel Gaskell
Right now, I'm project leader for the COG sourcebook and the Factsmith research software. Check 'em out.
Popular Posts
- Über parametrics throwdown
- CONFESS, HERETIC!!!
- Browser battle to the death
- Parametrics: A response to Isaiah McPeak (part 1)
- The Epic Flow Post
- Why I like states counterplans