Yet, this need not prohibit satisfactory entry into the novice levels of debate. It is my intent to categorize and occasionally translate some of the more intimidating jargon of the current debate world into user friendly terminology. I will also show how many of these concepts were widely employed on the playgrounds between tricycle races, around the jungle gym set, or while socializing over graham crackers chased by healthy swigs of warm milk prior to nap time. The bottom line is that not only is debate fun, but at the entry level any child can do it. It is not my intent to denigrate or belittle the activity of debate in any way, merely to throw open wide its linguistic doors which may have been barring admittance to many.
Debate is supposed to be focused clash over opposing views relating to the topic.
Too often, I find, negative debaters will totally ignore an affirmative case's specific arguments. This tactic not only ruins debate by avoiding clash, it also causes much wasted flow paper, hence needlessly harvested trees, undoubtedly leading to an ecological disaster of biblical proportions . . . . A word of caution though, explain your objection. Evidentiary support would be nice but is not always necessary. Many critics appreciate the quick thinking debaters capable of using logic to analytically dismantle the opposition.