Briefs: Why They Are Underappreciated in LD and How To Write One

My fingers are getting type-crazy. Let's put aside the fact it's NaNoWriMo (Nationals Novel Writing Month) and I'm writing 1.7k words a day novel-wise. No, they crave to write something else.

Briefs.

No, not:

I mean when you analyze another person's case when not in-round, find all the flaws, and write notes for when you debate them again. This is mandatory for every TP debater and absolutely useless for Parliers. But people under estimate the power of the brief in LD.

Imagine going into a round knowing exactly what your opponent is going to say, everything, values, criteria, contentions, and even applications. And then imagine under each of those were arguments in detail already arranged in IRAI format (Identify, Refute, Analyze, Impact) and complete with case-specific potential CX questions.

Heaven.

How do we achieve such knowledge? The idea is everyone in my club is supposed to turn in their flows to the "flow box" or copy down at least their opponent's case, their name, and what side they were debating onto supplied paper and put that in said box that way, later, we can either individually or as a group destroy those cases. Now, there are three main problems with this system.

1. Some People Have Trouble Flowing
I swear, I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I understand that this is something the most experienced debaters struggle with and it has a lot to do with learning style. It was just something I caught onto quicker. My struggle is more with reading the flow and not skipping crucial arguments do to unorganized thought processes. When I started student coaching I heavily emphasized working on flowing and set apart a week just for that with the LD newbies, with practices with the whole club weekly.
Sometimes, though, neglected flowing happens because debaters are lazy. They don't "need" to flow, they think. But You can't complain about your opponent "falsely" accusing you of dropping arguments when you didn't flow half of them.
 I absolutely abhor getting flows back from debaters with 3+ tournie experience (that's at least eighteen rounds) that look like this:

AC
V-Security
Cri (they remembered to label but for whatever reason didn't write it down)

That's it. No Contentions, No Applications, no RA, VLs, RtPs. Just that. Sometimes, they add:

C1-America

C2-Food

C3- (again unlabeled)

Well, at least they spaced their arguments properly. But how is that supposed to help the club? so-and-so's contention three wasn't "Food". It might have been "Undervaluing Freedom of Speech Increases Poverty Rates" but it probably wasn't "Food". I'm glad they got the main point, though, and I'm glad maybe their listening too intently to flow (happens to me allll the time).

Again, not talking about newbies. Cause that's exactly what my first couple rounds worth of flows looked like. Perfectly normal. I'm talking about people with 3+ tournament, sometimes 3+ years experience who think they've "got this", don't need flow, and don't care enough about their club to give them the information they need in case they debate that person next round.

Here's one of the biggest debate tips anyone can ever give you: flow. Take the time to learn how to flow rounds, flow rounds that aren't yours, always watch the flight before or after you. Care about debate and doing well. Never be cocky thinking you don't need to flow. Because even if you opponent is a scared newbie in their very first round and all they say is "Freedom is good. Genocide is bad. Vote Affirmative." and then run back their seat crying. (It's happened to be before.) Take the time to write down in that column, box, bubble, however you flow "C1. Freedom Is Good C2. Genocide is bad." Because you need the practice and they need the respect.

Anyway, the best thing ever is when I get something back like this in the flow box:

Opponent: John Doe (His Neg Case)
NC
John Adams quote on justice
*insert his defs here*
RA/Burden Scope
V-Justice
Def- Everyone getting their just due
Vl- Freedom creates justice
Vl2-Community standard's uphold bias and inhibit justice
RtP- Justice enables us to achieve all other values, it is a gateway
RtP2- Upholds Human Rights

C1. Justice Is Absolute
Lotr quote
App-Court system.....

And so and so forth. It's cool, really. On to the second problem with the flow box system:

2. Nobody Turns In Their Flows

They throw them away.  This just has to do with brief under-appreciation, which as you can I'm out to fix. And three:

3. I Am Only One Who Likes Briefing
The exception is when an epic debater has smoked everyone in my club. Then I can usually rally them together to create a Brief of Awesomeness, combing all of our logic prowess. Their motivation is usually based off of envy, though. With the exception of a few really good sports in my club, who share my excitement.
But no one else can seem to understand why I would brief all six of my flows and everyone else's I can get my hands on. They just think I'm a nut biscuit. Okay, yes, the fact that I looove my separate brief folder with briefs arranged by competitor's last name with their Aff first that I can just flip open and viola, does make me a bit of a whackadoodle (aren't we all?). 

I love the feeling of walking into a round where I know I'll be debating a tournament-winng first-placer legend and pulling out this uber-organized "cheat sheet" I spent three hours and breathing.

 And you should see the look on some people's faces when I walk in with one of those briefs. Or anyone in my club, 'cause they know how I am.

So how do you write a brief?

Simple.

Now, I have a reputation in my club for being a super OCD and a perfectionist. But the real truth is I have severe ADHD and in order to keep myself in line I must remain organized, simplified, and clear. Otherwise everything looks horrible and confusing.

This is my personal style. First I take the other debater's point and leave it in regular font on my laptop. Then, in bullet points underneath (in italics, to separate things more visually), I brainstorm counter-arguments.

Let's take my John Doe case from earlier.

Opponent: John Doe (His Neg Case)

NC
John Adams quote on justice

•   Here we would make any comments on said quote and maybe google for a counter-quote by John Adams that overrides this one or find the context in was used in and see what happens. Most of the time, though, quotes aren't a big deal and can be skipped.

*insert his defs here*

• Here we note any unusual definitions and whether a good definition debate would be worthwhile. Good to know pre-round before you get sucked in. Also, if this is just for you not for club use compare these to yours and note if you disagree/agree with them. Include your argumentation. Continue to do this with all points.

RA/Burden Scope

• Whether or not you accept the burden scope is usually case-dependent. Since this is a Negative case, you probably won't see a Burden Scope proposal, though. Pick apart their RA. 

V-Justice

• Here we might say somethings like:
• Justice, when absolute, applies to everyone and we each must pay for the things we do wrong.
• CX Questions, are we talking about absolute moral Justice? Or just Justice in the law? Then those who do immoral things within the law are justified? So it's not complete justice? Are all laws just?
• Justice conflicts with human rights. (Such as privacy, freedom, or property). Human Rights is the higher value, this is especially good if your value is Human Rights.
• CX Questions, Is it ever good to be merciful? Don't mercy and justice conflict?
•   Justice cannot be measured.
• CX Questions, what is the proper punishment for stealing one dollar? What about breaking someone's ribs with a baseball bat? Why not five years in prison instead of four? Who decides that? How do we know they are correct? Have they ever been incorrect? (Note to self: staple cases of injustice the US court system to this brief)
• Let's say, briefly, that instead of the below definition we say John Doe used "A fair system that administers laws." as his Justice def. That means Justice is Amoral, not inherently moral.
• CX Question, does the US have any unjust laws (Note: Have those case stapled and ready.) 

• Justice is unrealistic

Disclaimer: I took these arguments against Justice from this amazing blog post by Travis Herche, which you should go read immediately and analyze carefully for even more information. All credit to him.

And so the Brief continues. I had all this material (even stapled-on extra evidence) before I even made it to the value links. You don't have to use all that information. Especially if you are debating an experienced opponent, since all lot of the CX questions will be already answered within your opponent's case and they will have already spiked arguments they see coming.

WARNING: Never become dependent on a brief. Your debate skills should always be able to hold you up during a round. Don't always be looking down, perfect the ability to think on your feet. You are not the voice that just reads the brief, the brief is just that little voice in your ear that says, "Just in case you need an extra point..."

For me, the first tournament is always the hardest and the most exhilarating. There's the regular reasons, trying out new (most of the time lame) cases and realizing you hate (not really) these res's but getting to see friends and, you know, debate. There is an added terror, too, of having no briefs. No idea about what Valor or Invictus, or SONT, or EQUIP, or any other club is running. There's also the added pleasure of attaining all these flows and ohmygosh my addiction has been soothed.

As a concluding point,

If you are in WSDC: Do not feel the pressure to write your own. The minute you see postings, come to me. I can probably help you. Ask anyone who's ever bothered to come to me. I write briefs. Long, over organized briefs that prove I have no life.

~Kylie~