Winning from OG
By Ron Leizrowice
Winning from OG
(or at least not losing)
By Ron Leizrowice
Debating is not math’s
Debating is more of an art than a science
Some caveats The following is advice that works for
me
It may or may not work for you.
If you don’t vibe with it – don’t do it
There’s no substitute for knowing stuff
No guide can overcome shit judging
Some caveats but it can help
Practice this workshop
What are the difficulties with
Opening Government?
1. “The Fear”
2. “The Unknown”
3. “The Void”
Part 1: “The Fear”
Why do people find OG so scary?
Shortest time to prep / First to speak
Hey Siri, can I fire a CA?
What if we get it wrong?
Will they even remember me?
CO
“The Fear”: Advices & Reassurances
Indulge your vices: PM is the best: “Silent Prep” is a Statistically:
• You can’t get codeword for “quietly 2nd best position to be!
> Smoke?
screwed over panicking”
> Pee?
Talk to your partner!
> A nice glass of water? • You can define
the debate
• No rebuttal!
Part 2: The Unknown
You have no idea what other teams will say, what the clash is,
or even where to begin!
Here’s the dark secret OO don’t want you to know:
1. It doesn’t matter, because what they say hinges on what you say.
2. The clash is largely in your control
3. Giving PM speeches is actually quite formulaic
Avoiding the Unknown: Prep
1. Read the motion.
No really, read the fucking motion.
Go back and read it again.
Check your partner has the same understanding as you.
…read it once more to be sure you didn’t miss anything.
What does each word mean? Why is it there?
Avoiding the Unknown: Prep
2. Identify the debate
What is the status quo, and what is the problem in the status quo?
Where does this motion apply? To whom does it apply?
What is the scale of this debate? (really important)
Why did the CA’s pick this motion?
Avoiding the Unknown: Prep
3. Be Relevant
What changes? What doesn’t change?
What is uncontroversial?
What can you sacrifice? What will they sacrifice?
What are the alternatives?
Preparing well some case studies:
THBT historically oppressed groups should prioritise campaigning
for redistribution of wealth to poorer individuals, over claims to
reparations for past wrongs, in their advocacy and activism.
TH, as Joe Biden, would pursue the prosecution of Donald Trump.
“The Formula for All Debates”
All debates are ultimately (even if not explicitly) organized
around the following hierarchy of metrics:
1. Legitimacy (is this ok? / can we do this?)
2. Responsibility (who is at fault? / who should do this?)
3. Efficacy (will it work? / what changes?)
4. Evaluation (what is unique? / is this the best solution?)
Part 3: The Void
By the time you finish, 5 more
speeches and perhaps 40 minutes
will have elapsed.
• It is easy to feel like you will be
“left behind” by the debate
• Luckily, you have three tools at your disposal:
• Framing
• Burden Pushing
• POI’s
Avoiding the Void: Framing
This is a pretty vague concept, but I
encompass three points within it:
1. Outline your entire case in 30s or less
2. Characterize and contextualize the debate
3. Define the parameters and metrics of the round
Can be a few different things:
Providing context in which the debate takes place
What is Defining the area in which your arguments exist
Framing?
Painting a picture to make your case impactful
Clarifying what matters in the debate
Shift entrenched perceptions
Are you making a principled/moral claim, or a more
Matching your 1.
practical/utilitarian one?
If your case is centred around a principle, start by
Framing to clarifying your moral stance and try to dismiss or cast
doubt on the practical aspect of the debate.
your case: 2. If it is practical, explain the problem in the status quo
and try and elevate it above moral qualms.
If you are memorable, you escape the void
Focus on the criteria I listed, but in an ideal
Avoiding the world – deliver them in a powerful manner
Void: Rhetoric Your first 30s define the rest of your speech
Grab the judges attention right off the bat
Get them excited for what comes next
Avoiding the Catchy phrases / visceral images work well:
“Get paid, get laid”
Void: Rhetoric
Angela Merkel in the shower
The Benevolent Shopkeeper
There is no “fixed” comparative, and
Avoiding the you don’t have to agree with the other
sides framing of the debate (more on
Void: Burden that later).
Pushing Figuring out a tactical framing of the
comparative can be used to absolutely
demolish incompetent teams.
Here are two of my favourite examples:
Avoiding the
Void: Burden 1. THBT the protections of international law conventions
Pushing and treaties should not apply to combatants from
terrorist organisations
2. THBT oppressed groups should attempt to reclaim
slurs that have been directed against them
Examples of Effective Framing
Probably the most memed part of the most famous debating speech ever is just framing:
“Madame Chair, the global poor all around the world, and no matter what country in which they
live, currently live in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no
alternatives, shackled by capital that’s been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry that
have no incentives but to pursue their own interests, and chained by the fact that they can’t do
anything but to look at the question of their own subsistence. They’re unable to reach out for the
right to liberty and to self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition.”
Can you see what is happening now?
Examples of Effective Framing
THW create state funded schools exclusively for LGBT children
THBT atheists should aggressively proselytize to persuade
religious individuals to abandon their faith
Avoiding the Void: Clarity
Don’t spend 3 minutes on the perfect mech
Don’t provide 10 points of framing
Don’t run 15 arguments
Don’t give ambiguous definitions
Run one argument and do it properly
Avoiding the Void: Examples
THW dissolve the NCAA and allow all schools to independently set
student athlete guidelines
THW introduce a variable minimum wage
Avoiding the Void: Shock and Awe
There will be motions that seem insane
This is (usually) intentional – CAs don’t set motions by accident
Just bite the damn bullet, the judges want to be entertained
If you run a seemingly insane case, taking on the highest burden
possible, I promise you opp will fall apart.
Avoiding the Void: Shock and Awe
THW arm women in the USA
THW create an independent state for African-Americans
THW legalize broadcast gladiatorial battles, with all laws
suspended inside the arena
Avoiding the Void: Principled Arguments
If the motion is extraordinarily broad, you probably won’t anticipate
every change resultant of the motion
Even if you get the 1st order changes, you probably won’t get the 2nd
order ones (i.e. how do people respond to the changes)
Principled arguments are definitionally going to “cut through this”
Avoiding the Void: Examples
THW ban the development of Neuralink technology, or any other brain-
computer interface
THW enact an Immediate Democracy.
THW introduce a Social Credit score system
THW ban awards for creative works (e.g. the Oscars, Golden Globes)
Strategy: Partnership Dynamics
Unless they’re a nervous wreck, the person who doesn’t
“get” the debate, they go first
It’s easier to write your partner a speech, have them recite it
imperfectly, and plug the gaps once you know the opp.
Strategy: Hit the ground running
Please do not ever ever ever ever ever – read the motion
out
Don’t analyze stuff no one will disagree with
If the opp stance is unclear – extract it from them early
Strategy: Firing “down-bench”
Sometimes (if you do everything right) OO will fall apart
It’s tempting (and fun) to beat them into the ground
Don’t.
Take a POI from CO in the PM around 6 minutes.
Demand CO’s extension early in a POI during DPM
Strategy: Firing “down-bench”
If you’ve followed my previous advice, CG will be
gleefully writing out one of the 14 arguments you didn’t
run yet.
Weaponize the DPM speech against them:
Watch for their POI to LO
Muddy the waters / contradict their arguments
Flag their arguments, then dismiss and/or weigh against them
Strategy: POIs
You will get very little input on the debate through POIs
Strategies:
“The DLO challenge”: if LO does not engage, make sure the DLO does
“The Framing Grenade”: if CO are outside your frame, explain why
“The Silver Bullet”: if you notice a deadly flaw, hold fire till minute 6 of OW
“We’re still here”: if other speakers seem to have genuinely forgotten you…
Summary
Don’t panic.
If you run a crystal-clear, highly memorable, relevant argument, that
is still being discussed during the OW – you probably won
Attack the motion from the “bottom-up”
Plan ahead, prepare for CG/CO
Save your POIs for the opportune moment
