A little while ago, I lost an outround. I knew I was going to lose it. We were negative, and after the 1AC I knew that our preparation for the case was going to be inadequate and that we would probably lose the round. They were running a fairly common case, but with a twist on the evidence that I wasn’t prepared for. Standing up to give my 1NC, I knew things were going to get hairy. Aaaaand they did. The reason I felt that sinking feeling is that I knew how the other team was going to react. I knew that they knew that our evidence could be side-stepped, and that if they just stuck to their guns and gave even mildly competent responses, we were probably going to lose. The case had lots of judge appeal, and without really specific evidence, it was very hard to combat it. They knew that. Another reason is that I knew the evidence for the case. I knew that there was evidence out there that they were probably going to use, and how problematic it was going to be for us if they did.

This past year, I’ve come to realize how incredibly important it is to try to think like this. Being able to predict your opponents and their responses is absolutely invaluable. Ever since I was a wee little novice, my coaches told me that one of the most important steps of building a strong and winnable case was to write a negative strategy against it. to better my ability to preempt that same strategy. One thing I noticed, however, is that no one told me to do the same thing from the opposite perspective. The indisputably best way to effectively destroy a case is to know exactly what position the aff is going to come from.

The two weeks before this past tournament, I spent a week or two cases that had been extremely successful, and were run by nationally respected teams. For one of these cases, I had watched them sweep an outround earlier in the year, and had considered running the same case in the preseason. The second was a case that was being fairly widely run by teams that had been winning tournaments. I knew that my preparation was going to not only preempt the best affirmative arguments, but also attack their position from an angle that they weren’t prepared for. The problem with this, and what often makes me a little bid sad, is that I rarely actually end up debating the cases I prep the most thoroughly.

At the tournament, I hit both cases. The first round went beautifully. We ran arguments that directly preempted their 2AC responses, and ended up winning the round. The second round went the same way, except we lost. It was honestly one of the best rounds I’ve been a part of, and was one of the deepest debates I’ve ever had. All of this to say: Thinking one step ahead, while not a magic bullet, leads to much more educational, enjoyable, and deep debate rounds. The only way you can have these truly deep rounds and be able to keep one step ahead of your opponents is to know their case. Ideally, you would know most of the evidence that the Aff is going to use in response to your arguments, so you can effectively prepare to either refute that evidence, or sidestep it by crafting your arguments in a very specific way. Put yourself in the shoes of the other team. Ask yourself, “If someone were to run this argument against me, how would I go about refuting it?”

In essence, you have to broaden your research. Don’t just google “Syrian rebels good” to brief the Cut Aid to Syrian Rebel case. Look into specific rebel groups, the US vetting process for determining which rebels to assist, the underlying reasons behind why rebels would cooperate or defect to more extremist groups, and the reasons rebels fight at all. Then, look at all the reasons why aiding them would be a terrible idea and brainstorm ways to either refute those who support that position or how to avoid those arguments by focusing on more important ones. Strategizing in team policy isn’t just a matter of gathering a bunch of quotes saying the opposite of what the other team says, its an attempt to more effectively understand the situation more thoroughly than the other team. It’s a battle of wits, a chess game with rhetoric, facts, and argumentation as pieces.

Ultimately, your research should be a pursuit of understanding, not of disconnected quotes from random reporters, professors and experts. In your studies, aim to paint a larger picture of the case in question. Only then will you be able to have the best rounds you can have.