I've always liked games so I was playing around with the possible comparison of debating "actions" to help enhance your case when you're not quite sure what to do. Just like in RPG's where you can attack, defend, heal, cast spells, I found it entertaining to consider different ideas to make debating more interesting. Here are a few "Debating Actions" I summarized that may help in future debates.
1. Precision Attack: Precisely what, exactly what, is wrong with the opponent's case? It may be a single word, it may be a single idea, but if you find it, you may take down his whole case. Using different comparisons, metaphors, or asking various questions, you may clarify the opponent's exact stance. The more specific an idea is, the easier it is to figure out if it's wrong or correct.
Example: "Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby's life." -- Precision Attack: "You assume that we are killing a baby... Please prove this further..."
2. The Reconfiguration: Perhaps you are having difficulty explaining your position. I found my case in the cyber offensive debate remarkably complex, so I felt like I had to use multiple different ways to explain what was happening. Different tones, styles, and ideas can highlight the same case in many different ways.
Example: The "Paranoid Android" is so focused on its attack we lose our enforcement of user data. And this further loss of data is even worse than what four Chinese agents can manage. If we don't solve the common source of the problem -- our weak defense -- we can never gain our people's trust. Based on Pro's ideals, we'd just be attacking country after country, unable to stop malicious people in general. If Equifax had enforced its cybersecurity in the first place, we would've avoided this whole problem.
[Long paragraphs with detailed sentences, may be unclear]
1. US Defenses is Weak if we focus only on Attack (Proved by Equifax)
2. Arbitrary country X continues attacking the US (Pro thinks China is the sole problem, while it is not)
3. We hinder only country X from attacking the US (Why solve problem 2, rather than solve problem 1)?
[Numbered points help refocus and transition logically in a chronological manner]
- CON affirms that defense, in the long run, outweighs offense for reasons of escalation, over the distribution of resources, and sacrificing of our defensive capabilities.
- CON affirms that defense enhancement encourages fixing of problems within security, unlike pro who encourages us to ignore enforcing standards and focus more on attacking other countries.
[Bullet points help concisely explain points and summarize ideas that may otherwise be too complicated]
3. The Explanation: It's possible that real world statistics and ideas are a bit too muddy and mix up together. Creating examples or fictional situations may greatly help strengthen your case. The Explanation is similar to Reconfiguration, but can also make your case more lively when it's filled with studies and history. In my debate about giving prisoners the ability to gain lighter sentences, I tried to link the "retribution" idea to related cases in real life. Though it arguably held no weight, it greatly helped understanding and felt like I could understand my argument better. Some times explanation can also help you gain inspiration or ideas you otherwise would not have had.
Example: People will use any excuse to justify the VR. We see this even in the modern-day. The citizens were rallied by Trump, believing his election to be oppressive -- voter fraud, Biden's lies, so on and so forth. Yet most of these claims are unfounded by expert sources -- otherwise, the Supreme Court would've overturned the election already. The people conducted a violent revolution against the capitol, only to result in deaths and unchanged policy. If we let citizens revolt under any justification, then we would have nothing but chaos, and the entire government contract is violated.
4. The Question: Often times you may be so absorbed in your case that you forget to think about the other side. Whether it be admitting a counter argument, only to outweigh it, or to force your opponent to reconfigure, "The Question" can greatly help encompass all ideas. I noticed in my debate against Whiteflame that I was forced to ask a lot of questions in the end, and lost partially due to inability to raise my framework above his. Nevertheless, I believe I put up a good fight by forcing him to clarify further. In a way, it's similar to "Precision Attack".
Example: If voters are convinced that there is no unique risk with this addition of a new job that saves lives, then it is no different than becoming a back-breaking worker at a hazardous construction site. Notice how con jumps around the "unique" idea the whole entire debate. I will repeat it again: Why does Con allow for the poor to work at hazardous construction sites, which may or may not result in permanent injury? .... I will repeat my previous question from last round in a different manner: Are we somehow "exploiting" people who may not know all the side effects of donation, doing it because of pressure from society ("honor" as Con claims), and receiving no benefit?
Additional explanation can greatly help "The Question" which already puts doubt in the opponent's case. If I had highlighted that my case was less arbitrary and contradictory, then I may have had a chance to tie or win the debate.
What do all of you think? What are your favorite "debating actions"?