LIVE RESPONSE GUIDE

Judges decide if you're worth listening to in three seconds. Start strong:

1. Bold claim: "This debate will determine whether [stakes]."
2. Surprising fact: "In 2024, [counterintuitive data point]."
3. Direct question: "What happens when [scenario]?"
4. Human story: "When Maria lost her job..." (brief—10 seconds max)

Never start with: "Today I will argue that..." The judges already know.

If you blank: Start with your strongest single sentence. Anything confident beats throat-clearing.

The best offense includes defense. Spend 30 seconds naming the most obvious attack and pre-refuting it:

1. Name it: "The most common objection to this position is..."
2. Steelman it: "And it's a fair point—[acknowledge strength]."
3. Defeat it: "But here's what that critique misses..."

Why this works: When your opponent raises this argument later, judges think "they already addressed that." Your opponent looks unprepared.

If you run out of time: Cut this section, not your strongest contention.

Use these question types strategically:

1. Clarifying questions: "When you said X, did you mean [interpretation A] or [interpretation B]?" — Use first to understand their position.
2. Testing questions: "Does your argument apply in [edge case]?" — Probes for logical limits.
3. Trapping questions: A sequence leading to a conclusion they can't escape. Plan these in advance.
4. Concession questions: "Would you agree that [obvious truth that helps you]?" — Locks in common ground.

The golden rule: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to. CX isn't discovery—it's confirmation.

If they evade: "I'll note for the judges that my opponent couldn't answer [simple question]." Then move on. Don't get stuck.

Control techniques when being questioned:

1. Answer the question asked, not the question implied: "You asked if X is true. Yes. But if you're suggesting Y, that's a different question."
2. Clarify vague questions: "I want to answer accurately. When you say 'effective,' do you mean cost-effective or outcome-effective?"
3. Bridge back: "The answer is yes, but what's relevant here is [your talking point]."
4. Buy time legitimately: "Let me think about how to phrase this precisely." (2-3 seconds max)

If you sense a trap: Ask them to state their full question. Sometimes making them lay it out exposes where they're going.

Never: Argue during CX. Answer briefly and move on. Your rebuttals are for arguments.

Structure your 3 minutes:

1. First minute: Attack their weakest argument with your strongest response. Go for the kill.
2. Second minute: Defend your case against their best attack. Don't ignore what's working for them.
3. Third minute: Weigh and compare. "Even if they win X, my argument matters more because [impact]."

If running short: Skip defense on arguments they didn't attack. Drop your weakest points—judges notice when you can't defend everything.

If running long: Cut the weighing section before cutting attacks. Judges will weigh themselves if you've done the work.

Structure for maximum impact:

1. Lead with your ballot story (30 sec): "You should vote for me because [one sentence reason]."
2. Crystallize the clash (60 sec): "The debate came down to [key issue]. I won this because [reason]."
3. Voting issues (90 sec): "First, [issue]. Second, [issue]." Give judges a checklist.
4. Final impression (15 sec): End with something memorable. A callback. A principle. A question.

Never: Introduce new arguments. Judges will ignore them and penalize you for trying.

Always: Speak directly to judges. "When you evaluate this debate..." Make it about their decision.

1. Challenge their challenge:
   • If they attacked the source: "My source is [credible because]. Their critique doesn't address the actual findings."
   • If they attacked methodology: "That's a fair question about any study. But [this methodology is standard/the sample size is sufficient/multiple studies confirm]."
2. Provide backup evidence:
   • "Even setting that study aside, [second source] reaches the same conclusion."
   • "The trend is confirmed across multiple sources: [brief list]."
3. Reframe the significance:
   • "My argument doesn't depend entirely on that evidence. The logical case is [reasoning that stands alone]."
   • "Even if that evidence is weaker than I claimed, it's still stronger than any evidence they've provided."

If the attack lands: Concede gracefully and pivot. "Fair point on that study. But my core argument is [reasoning]. The evidence supported it; it isn't required for it."

1. Clarify your reasoning:
   • "I may not have been clear. The link between [A] and [B] is [explanation]."
   • "There's a step I assumed. Let me make it explicit: [unstated warrant]."
2. Accept partial critique, hold the line:
   • "That's a valid edge case. But the general principle still holds because [reason]."
   • "True, my framing was too absolute. A more precise statement is [refined claim]—and that still defeats their position."
3. Expose their logic gap:
   • "They say my logic fails—but they haven't explained why. What's the specific flaw?"
   • "Their critique assumes [premise they haven't proven]. Until they prove that, my logic stands."

If the attack lands: "That's a genuine weakness in how I framed it. Here's a stronger version of my argument: [revised]."

1. Acknowledge context:
   • "They're right that I have a perspective here. Everyone does. What matters is whether my argument is sound."
   • "Yes, I've advocated for this position before. Because the evidence convinced me. That's consistency, not bias."
2. Redirect to argument:
   • "My background doesn't change the logic of this argument. Address the argument."
   • "We're not debating who I am. We're debating [the resolution]. Let's stay on topic."
3. Demonstrate expertise:
   • "Actually, my experience with [specific relevant experience] is exactly why I understand [nuance]."
   • "I've studied this for [time/context]. But don't take my word for it—here's what the evidence shows."

Never: Get defensive or emotional. That confirms their frame. Stay calm and redirect to substance.

1. Name it directly:
   • "That's interesting, but it doesn't address my point about [original issue]. Let me restate it."
   • "Judges will note my opponent is pivoting away from the central question: [resolution]."
2. Bridge back:
   • "[Brief acknowledgment of their tangent.] Now, returning to the actual issue..."
   • "I'll address that in a moment. First, let's resolve [core point] since that's what this debate is about."
3. Accept if advantageous:
   • If their new topic favors you: "Happy to discuss that too. [Your response on new topic.] But notice they've conceded my original point by not responding to it."

When to let it go: If their tangent is weak and yours is strong, claim the original point as conceded and move on. Don't chase them.

1. Validate the feeling:
   • "I can see this matters to you. It matters to me too. Let's work through it."
   • "That frustration is understandable given what's at stake. And here's why my position actually addresses those stakes..."
2. Separate emotion from logic:
   • "The passion is clear. But passion doesn't determine who's right. Let's look at the evidence."
   • "I share your concern about [underlying value]. I just disagree about the best way to address it."
3. De-escalate:
   • Lower your voice. Slow your pace. Measured tone wins against heated tone.
   • "Let's step back. We both want [common goal]. The question is how to get there."

Never: Match their emotional escalation. You lose even if you're right. Stay the calm one.

1. Question relevance:
   • "[Expert] is respected in [their field]. But this is a question about [different field]. Why should their opinion carry special weight here?"
   • "That's one expert. Here are [other experts] who disagree. Expert consensus isn't on their side."
2. Provide counter-authority:
   • "Actually, [more relevant expert] says [opposite]. And their expertise is more directly applicable because..."
   • "If we're citing authorities, let's note that [institution/study] contradicts that position."
3. Focus on the argument itself:
   • "Expert opinions help, but the argument still has to make sense. Why is the reasoning correct? Let's evaluate that."
   • "Even respected experts can be wrong. What's the actual evidence and logic here?"

Trap to avoid: Don't dismiss expertise entirely—that looks anti-intellectual. Acknowledge the expert's credentials while questioning their application to this specific case.

1. Strategic concession:
   • "My opponent makes a fair point about [specific thing]. But here's why it doesn't change the bottom line..."
   • Conceding a minor point demonstrates reasonableness and can re-engage skeptics.
2. Reframe with a question:
   • "Let me put this differently. What happens if we don't [your proposal]? [Paint the alternative.]"
   • A question forces judges to engage mentally.
3. Tell a story:
   • "Here's what this looks like in practice: [concrete example]."
   • Stories are memorable. Data can be contested; narratives stick.
4. Directly address the skepticism:
   • "You might be wondering about [obvious objection]. Here's my answer..."
   • Naming what judges are thinking builds credibility.

Signs you're losing: Judges stopped writing. They're looking at your opponent during your speech. They're checking the time. Adjust immediately.

1. Correct immediately:
   • "Let me correct that—I misstated. What I meant was [accurate version]."
   • Quick corrections show confidence. Trying to hide mistakes makes it worse.
2. Acknowledge gracefully:
   • "My opponent is right to correct me on that detail. The broader point stands: [core argument]."
   • This works when someone else catches the mistake. Own it fast.
3. Reframe:
   • "That was imprecise. A better way to put it: [refined statement]."
   • "I oversimplified. The more accurate version is [nuanced claim]."

What not to do: Double down on the mistake. Blame the opponent for misunderstanding. Pretend you said something different. All of these destroy credibility.

1. Admit honestly:
   • "I don't have that specific data. What I do know is [related point that helps you]."
   • Honest acknowledgment beats obvious dodging.
2. Redirect to what you know:
   • "That's outside my preparation. But here's what is clear: [your strongest point]."
   • "I can't speak to that detail, but the overall evidence shows [your case]."
3. Question the question:
   • "Is that relevant to the resolution? My argument doesn't depend on [that detail]."
   • "Interesting question, but the debate is about [resolution]. Let's focus there."

Never: Make up an answer. Judges and opponents often know when you're inventing. Getting caught destroys your ethos for the rest of the debate.

1. Hit voting issues:
   • "Let me cut to what matters. The vote comes down to [key issue]."
   • Give judges the decision rubric even if you can't fully develop it.
2. Trust your best point:
   • One fully developed argument beats three sketched ones.
   • "If you remember nothing else: [your strongest claim and why it matters]."
3. Strong close:
   • Your last sentence matters disproportionately. Make it memorable.
   • "The resolution affirmed/negated because [one sentence ballot story]."

What to cut: Defense on minor points. Background explanation. Anything that isn't directly winning the ballot. What to keep: Attacks on their strongest point. Your clearest voting issue. Your close.

1. Don't interrupt back: You can't out-volume them. You'll both look bad, but they're used to it. Stay composed.
2. Wait for an opening: They have to breathe. When they pause, insert your point calmly and directly.
3. Use clarifying questions: "I want to make sure I understand. Are you saying [restate clearly]?" Forces them to slow down.
4. Appeal to the judges: "I'll let my opponent finish, and then I'll respond." Makes their behavior visible.

The key insight: Steamrollers win by making you flustered. Stay calm and you win. Judges reward composure.

1. Pick their strongest argument: Identify which one is actually dangerous. Attack only that one thoroughly.
2. Name the technique: "My opponent listed ten arguments in a minute. Notice that none were developed. Let me address the one that matters..."
3. The devastating line: "They threw ten arguments at you because they can't win on any single one. I can."
4. Don't chase: Attempting to respond to everything validates the approach. Focused depth beats scattered breadth.

The key insight: Gish Galloping only works if you accept the frame that you need to answer everything. Reject that frame.

1. Match precision where needed: If they define a term, you can too. Don't let them control all the definitions.
2. Expose overreach: "That's a technical argument, but does it hold up practically? In the real world, [counterexample]."
3. Appeal to common sense: "Setting aside the jargon, what my opponent is really saying is [plain language version]. Does that make sense?"
4. Question their framework: "They've set up a framework that happens to guarantee their win. But why should we accept that framework?"

The key insight: Technical debates often hide weak substantive arguments. Force the substance to the surface.

1. Acknowledge the feeling: "That's a moving story. And it's exactly why we need to get this policy right—not just feel good about it."
2. Redirect to logic: "We both care about [value]. The question is which approach actually achieves it. Let's look at the evidence."
3. Use their energy: "My opponent's passion shows why this matters. And that passion should demand we look at what actually works."
4. Avoid looking cold: Show you care too—about evidence, about outcomes, about truth. Don't dismiss emotions; redirect them.

The key insight: You lose if you look heartless. You win if you care about outcomes more than feelings. Thread that needle.

Your brain freezes. The clock's running. Here's your recovery:

1. Don't panic-talk: "Um, uh, so basically..." makes it worse. Take a breath instead.
2. Use a bridge phrase: "Let me emphasize the key point here—" buys you 2 seconds to find your thread.
3. Return to your strongest argument: "What matters most is [your best point]." Judges won't penalize repetition of strong content.
4. If you can't recover: "I'll return to that point if time permits. Moving on—" No one expects perfection.

What judges actually think: Brief pauses read as thoughtful. Panicked rambling reads as unprepared. Silence beats garbage.

You cited a study earlier. Now you can't remember the numbers. Options:

1. Generalize confidently: "The research consistently shows [general finding]" is better than fumbling for exact stats.
2. Use the hedge-and-pivot: "The exact figure is in my notes—but the trend is clear: [pattern]."
3. Callback without specifics: "As the MIT study I cited demonstrated..." Judges often remember you cited it even if they don't recall numbers.
4. Worst case: "Multiple studies confirm this." Vague but not a lie. Move forward.

Never: Make up numbers. Judges may have written down what you actually said. Getting caught fabricating destroys credibility.

You said the wrong name, mangled a word, or misstated your own position.

1. Correct immediately and move on: "—Piketty, rather. His research shows..." Don't dwell on it.
2. If you're not sure you erred: Keep going. Most missteps go unnoticed. Correcting a non-error wastes time.
3. If caught in CX: "I misspoke. What I meant was [correct version]." Honesty > defensiveness.

Key insight: Judges have seen hundreds of debates. Minor stumbles don't matter. Recovery grace does.

You can feel it: confused faces, skeptical body language, judges not flowing. You're losing them.

1. Simplify immediately: "Let me put this simply: [one clear sentence]."
2. Acknowledge complexity: "I know this is dense. Here's what you need to remember: [core point]."
3. Tell a brief story: Humans respond to narrative. "Consider what this means in practice: [30-second concrete example]."
4. Repeat your voting issue: "At the end of this round, ask yourself one question: [your framing]. That's what I'm proving."

Warning sign: If judges stop writing, you've lost them. Change something—pace, content, energy.

Cross-examination is the only phase where you can't call prep time. Your brain is splitting: listen, think, respond, plan. Here's how to survive:

1. When you don't understand: "Can you rephrase that?" is always legitimate. It also buys 5 seconds.
2. When you don't know: "I'd need to see the specific evidence to address that" is better than guessing.
3. When trapped: "I see where you're going. Let me clarify my actual position—" Don't answer the question as asked if it's a trap.
4. When being rapid-fired: "Let me answer your first question fully before we move on." Slows their pace.

The secret: You don't have to answer every question the way they want. You have to look reasonable while protecting your case. Judges reward composure, not compliance.

They made a genuinely good point. You don't have a response. Now what?

1. Concede narrowly: "That's fair on [specific sub-point]. But notice it doesn't touch [your main argument]."
2. Reframe stakes: "Even granting their point, the question remains: [bigger issue they haven't addressed]."
3. Minimize impact: "Interesting point. But does it change the outcome? My core case still stands because [reason]."
4. What NOT to do: Pretend it didn't happen. Judges noticed. Ignoring strong arguments looks evasive.

Remember: You don't need to win every argument. You need to win the debate. Strategic concession can actually build credibility.

You have 30 seconds left and two more arguments to cover. Triage:

1. Drop your weakest remaining point. Don't mention it. Judges won't miss what they never heard.
2. Hit your voting issue: "Here's what this comes down to: [single sentence]."
3. Trust your best argument: If you made one strong point well, trust it. Don't dilute with rushed additions.
4. End with confidence: A strong final sentence beats two mumbled points. "For these reasons, I urge a [affirmative/negative] decision."

Never: Speed up so much judges can't follow. A clear 80% beats a garbled 100%.

For any argument you face, respond with:

1. Acknowledge: "I understand the point you're making about [X]."
2. Respond: "Here's why that doesn't hold: [your response]."
3. Extend: "And this actually supports my position because [connection to your case]."

This three-step move is ancient. Cicero used it in his orations against Catiline—acknowledge the force of opposition, show why it fails, return to your case. It works because it respects your audience's intelligence while holding your ground. Aristotle would have recognized it as building ethos through fairness.

Takes 15-30 seconds per argument. Works on anything. Practice it until it's automatic.

Example: "I understand the concern about cost. But the research shows these programs pay for themselves within five years. And that long-term savings is exactly why my framework of sustainable policy should guide this debate."