Notes for editing Nats files

[Nate Wong]

Here are some notes on editing nats files to make "Medium" versions. I realize we've talked about this a decent amount but never actually laid out what needs to be done.

Things files need:

1. A concise 2NC overview. For disads this should be a brief 1-2 sentence of the disad, and then a brief paragraph explanation or numbered list of reasons of why the disad outweighs the case. For counterplans, a brief 1-2 sentence explanation of what the cp is and then an explanation of the key distinctions between the cp and the plan or 1-2 key solvency arguments that you need to win to win the cp. I think a good way of structuring the overview for cps is: 1. Start out by explaining the key question posed by the rez that the cp tests - this will make the cp seem very reasonable because it's directly related to a central resolutional issue/question which makes it an easier sell for judges who may be agaisnt them ideologicaly, 2. Brief explanation of the CP, 3. Key issues to win

Example: "The key question posed by the resolution is whether the UNITED STATES should invest in transportation infrastructure. Our counterplan tests that question by arguing that China could provide the investment better than the 'United States. Our 1NC ___ and ___ evidence indicate that China wants to provide the funding to the US and is asking the US to accept its money for infrastructure investment, and that they have enough money to effectively finance huge overhauls of the US transportation infrastructure networks. 

They have made a key concession which means the counterplan solves all of the case - they have conceded that both the plan and the counterplan have the US build the actual infrastructure, it's just a question of whether the US or China provides the funding to build the infrastructure. They do not have a single solvency deficit as to why China would not be able to provide the funding effectively - money is money - which means the counterplan solves 100% of the case."

2. Avoid using debate jargon like "magnitude" & "timeframe," say stuff like "the impact is larger than the affirmatives," or "our impact should be prioritized because it happens faster." I think this is best for 2 reasons: 1. Faster judges will understand what you're saying and know that you're just adapting, and 2. In the event that we have faster rounds, either a) you can just use the existing fast file or b) you can easily adjust those blocks on the fly in the round, whereas it's a lot harder to pick up a fast file with lots of fast jargon and quickly adapt it to a slower paced round that requires more thought-out explanation. 

3. Other blocks that need to be updated to make sure we have a solid medium version, this includes rewriting the tags & extensions to make them more medium-friendly and less jargon-y, and taking out cards that are low quality - the test for that is if we could credibly extend it in front of a slow judge, basically take out any cards that are warrant-lite - we won't have time to read them anyways: 1nc & 2nc UQ for all disads, 2nc link walls, 2nc solvency runs, 2nc perm answers.

--

Nate Wong

USC '12, B.A. International Relations

Legal Clerk at Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP