Scribd
Upload
123 views

Crystallization: What It Is: Summing Up The Debate, Addressing Most Important Args, and Giving Voters

This document provides guidance on crystallization and providing voting issues in debate rounds. It discusses that crystallization involves summarizing the key arguments and addressing the most important points to give voters to the judge. It recommends linking voters to the criteria to show how you achieve the goal, and making offensive arguments a priority. The document outlines two types of crystallization: line-by-line, which covers every argument but is time-consuming, and big picture, which focuses on major impacts but risks lay judges missing important details. It provides components of effective voting issues and emphasizes the importance of timing and using word economy when giving voters in speeches.

Uploaded by

candiisweet13
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views

Crystallization: What It Is: Summing Up The Debate, Addressing Most Important Args, and Giving Voters

This document provides guidance on crystallization and providing voting issues in debate rounds. It discusses that crystallization involves summarizing the key arguments and addressing the most important points to give voters to the judge. It recommends linking voters to the criteria to show how you achieve the goal, and making offensive arguments a priority. The document outlines two types of crystallization: line-by-line, which covers every argument but is time-consuming, and big picture, which focuses on major impacts but risks lay judges missing important details. It provides components of effective voting issues and emphasizes the importance of timing and using word economy when giving voters in speeches.

Uploaded by

candiisweet13
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

CRYSTALLIZATION

What it is: summing up the debate, addressing most important args,


and giving voters.

- It is NOT just saying “voter” and moving on.

- Give reasons as to why it is a voter

o Example: My contention one states that exit exams narrows the


curriculum. This is a voter because narrowing the curriculum
limits education, which decreases educational efficiency.

o Most LD judges like criterial debate, so link at least some voters


to your criterion and how you achieve it.

- Try to make your voters offensive. If your opponent does something


drastic that can lead to them losing (i.e. not extending something vital)
then point that out. Otherwise, make offensive arguments a priority.

Types of crystallization:

1) Line by line - Going down the flow and covering every argument

Pros

- Local judges like this cause you are covering more. Sometimes novices
will point out that you are dropping arguments (even if they are blippy
and don’t need to be answered) and mommy judges will vote off of
that)

Cons

- Too time consuming

- Might drop important arguments

2) Big picture - Talking generically about the major impacts

Pros

- Allows you to focus on bigger impacts


Cons

- Lay judging

Voter
What can’t win by itself: framework and something opponent could have
done but didn’t. You have to have offensive arguments working for you and
you point this out now.

If you’re winning the framework make that work for you and link all your args
back to it. You can’t just say “my criterion is better” and expect the judge to
pick you up.

Components of a voting issue:

1) Signpost – tell the judge where the voting issue occurs

2) Clear refutation

3) Extensions

a. not a summary of just the claim, but include warrant and impact.

- Wondering: “but I don’t have enough time!” WORD ECON.


Cut out “…umm…”s

- In the last speech, you can just reference claim and


impact ONLY IF you’ve explained thoroughly the warrant
in a previous rebuttal.

b. Make sure to extend if opponent is non responsive.

4) Link to criterion

a. The argument doesn’t matter if it doesn’t link back to your


criterion, since the criterion is ultimately what your advocacy is
trying to achieve.

b. If possible, try to link to both criterions and showing that you can
achieve both can lead to you winning.
TIMING IS VITAL! USE WORD ECONOMY. Don’t run out of time and
always give voters. Judges like having specific things told to them to
evaluate. They don’t like to have to think for themselves and have to
evaluate everything to come to a decision.

- 2AR: SHORTEST SPEECH.

o Hit the most vital arguments.

o WORD ECON. WORD ECON. WORD ECON.

o Concede strategically, and don’t be afraid to, just use it to your


advantage.

o Good strategy – “give voters along the way”

 This way you if you are in the middle of a response and


think, “hmmm this would be a good voter” you wouldn’t
have to repeat yourself later.

 Warning: you might get lost in numbering.

o Time division: 2 to 1 or 50:50.

- 2NR: Most relaxed speech of the round. (why most people prefer
negating)

o Give yourself about 2 min (or more) on crystallization.

o Emphasize on your criterion. Makes an extra hurdle for the aff to


have to jump over.

Many times, judges like to know exactly when you are crystallizing. A
good opening sentence might be, “So this is how the round breaks down.
The first point you will be voting on is… Because... and the second is…
because…”

Strategic because it gives the judge voting issues that will be easier to
flow, and you won’t be lost in numbering voters.

You might also like