Deciding What to Run 18 Days Out: Lay Judge Pool vs. the Kritik
You are the head coach of a 14-member speech and debate team at a suburban high school of 1,900 students. The district qualifier is 18 days away. Your two varsity policy debaters, both juniors, are 3–9 this season. In six of those losses the round turned on framework: they read a dense kritik that neither can explain fluently in cross-examination, and judges-about 60 percent of whom are community volunteers with no debate background-vote against them. Opponents typically answer with a one-sentence 'no impact,' and the judge agrees. One debater wants to keep the kritik and 'trust the flow'; the other wants to switch immediately to a stock-issues case with a single disadvantage. Your program has $0 for new evidence files, three 90-minute practices per week, and one all-day Saturday scrimmage before the qualifier. Both debaters have college aspirations but neither plans to debate competitively after high school.
1. Which case should the team run at the qualifier, and what evidence in the setup drives that choice?
Read the worked answer
Run the stock-issues case, with one narrow critical framing argument kept as a pocket option. This is not a verdict that kritiks are weak; it is a judgment about audience, time, and demonstrated fluency.
- Judge pool: with 60 percent lay volunteers, the winning skill is explaining a claim in one sentence and comparing impacts. The setup shows the pair cannot do that with the K in cross-examination, so the K forfeits their strongest asset.
- Time: 18 days builds fluency in a known structure but does not build mastery of dense literature plus an alternative plus framework blocks.
- Diagnosis of losses: the losses cluster on framework and 'no impact,' which is fixable with a one-advantage affirmative and a prewritten weighing standard.
- Educational value: audience adaptation is itself a core debate skill and a transferable one; the K's critical thinking can live inside a framing advantage.
Concretely: a 3:30 affirmative with explicit inherency, one impact, and a two-sentence weighing block; the critically inclined partner owns the framework extension and the 1AR. Reassess after the scrimmage, not mid-tournament.
2. Design an 18-day practice plan with specific drills and time allocations that gets this team ready.
Read the worked answer
Days 1–3 (three practices): rewrite the 1AC to 3:30 and cut a one-page framework block. Drill: each debater delivers the 1AC to a non-debater adult or a novice and must get the impact restated back correctly.
Days 4–7: cross-examination drills. Partner asks hostile lay questions ('What does that word mean?' 'Why does that matter?'); answers must be under 15 seconds and contain no jargon. Build a jargon-swap list (e.g., 'link story' becomes 'the reason the plan causes the harm').
Days 8–10: rebuttal redo drills-record the 2NR/2AR, replay, and identify every dropped argument. Ten minutes per redo, four redos per practice.
Saturday (day 11): four timed practice rounds with parent volunteers as judges. Collect written RFDs and compare them to what the debaters thought they said.
Days 12–17: judge adaptation-two rounds against a lay judge and one against an experienced coach; revise the 1AC for anything a lay judge misheard. Day 18: light flow review, no new arguments.
Budget zero dollars: use the school library databases and existing files.
3. How do you handle the disagreement between the partners so that both commit to the plan?
Read the worked answer
Handle it in a private 20-minute meeting with the partners, not in front of the squad, because public capitulation produces half-committed execution.
- Name the shared goal - qualifying, and both debaters being able to defend every claim they make.
- Present the data, not the taste. Show the six framework losses and the judge-pool composition. Frame the decision as an experiment with a review date, not a permanent verdict on the kritik.
- Give the K-inclined partner real ownership: the framework block, the 1AR extension, and the pocket position if an opponent runs a kritik against them.
- Write the commitment down: roles, the Saturday review, and the rule that no one introduces a new position after day 12.
- Set a post-season debrief so the K can return next year if the pair wants it. This honors the educational purpose while protecting the qualifier.