Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate Lexi Pritchard of Cheyenne East asks a great question: what should and shouldn’t you be flowing in policy? The message we usually impart on novices is “flow everything.” It’s a message that makes sense given we’re often trying to convince students to flow at all. However, the real answer is a little more complicated. I’d like to address the question of how to flow comprehensively, so I’m going to start with the basics and work my way up to some advanced tips. If you want to jump to the most on point answer to Lexi’s question, skip down to the “What to Flow: What ‘Sets the Order’”, but I highly advise you to read the entire article. A lot of the language used in this article will be oriented around policy, as that was Lexi’s question, but all of the tips and flowing strategy apply equally in PF and LD. Basics Let’s start with the proper materials. I know this section runs the risk of appearing pedantic, but I promise it’s coming from decades of experience and the knowledge that small details can really make a difference. You should be flowing on plain or pastel yellow legal-sized paper, oriented vertically. We make a lot of arguments in debate, so legal-sized paper is going to get you more bang for your buck. Orienting your paper vertically is going to be absolutely necessary to capture all of the arguments your opponent is going to make while keeping it organized (this is just as true in PF and LD as it is in policy!). The case for orienting your paper vertically will become clearer over the course of this article, but trust me, that’s the way to do it. Specifying plain or pastel yellow might seem oddly specific, but those are the two colors of flow paper that easily distinguish blue and black ink. If you prefer to flow in multiple colors (I did when I debated, but since I started judging I just use black) and are stuck with just a blue and black pen, only those two colors of paper will allow you to clearly distinguish between blue and black ink. I erred toward pastel yellow back in the days of tubs and expandos because it was easy to tell my flow paper from the paper evidence, but if your team is paperless then plain white legal-sized paper will get the job done. It should go without saying that the Pilot G2 0.38 is the GOAT of pens. That extra-small ink (0.38) is especially important for those of us with bad handwriting, myself included. You should absolutely not flow on a computer. A lot of young debaters will set up their flow paper by hand-drawing or printing equidistant lines for each speech: a 1AC column, a 1NC column, etc, all the way to the 2AR. I advise you not to do this. You don’t want every column to have the same amount of real estate. If you’re the 2N, you should be leaving significantly more space to write out what you want to say in your 2NR in the 2NR column. All speeches aren’t equal, you should be saving room for the final speech you’ll give in the debate. Now that we’ve got that down: you’ll want a different sheet of paper for each case page and each off-case argument. So if the affirmative has 3 advantages and a solvency section, that’s 4 sheets of paper for the aff. If the negative reads 3 disads and a counterplan, that’s 4 more sheets of paper. That debate at a minimum will take you 8 sheets of paper to flow. Every contention, every off-case should get its own sheet of paper. From inherency to topicality, to each argument its own sheet. This is vital for keeping the debate organized: when the debate starts, you won’t know which sheet of paper will blow up, which sheet your opponent might make a surprising amount of arguments on. You have to plan for the unexpected and leave room. Once you’re arranging your flows like this, roadmaps are going to make a lot more sense. The only point of a roadmap is to tell the judge what order to put their sheets of paper in. (Sidenote: you should drop the phrase “case” from your vocabulary when giving the order, as well as “1AC order” and “advantage 1, then advantage 2.” Always tell the judge which specific case pages you’ll be going to, and address them by label, not the order they were read in. Your judge is far more likely to remember the advantage name than whether it was read first.) Last, the basic idea of what you should be flowing. When you’re flowing early speeches you’re going to hear a lot of evidence. The most important thing to get down is the basic idea of the tag: what the evidence says. Flowing citations is great, but I’ll be honest, when I was debating I didn’t have a lot of time for catching author names. There’s a lot of things you need to be doing during debates and this wasn’t at the top of my priority list. You do, however, need to have a mechanism for distinguishing between evidence and an analytical argument. For me, that means flowing the arg (tag), and if it’s a card I put a parentheses after a line break. If I catch the citation, it goes in the parentheses, if not, the parentheses is just empty- but that way I still know it’s a card. Dates are important to flow when they’re important to the round. Is their non-unique to your DA very, very old? Then it’s worth flowing the date so you can make an argument about it. However, rather than flow the date in the parentheses, why not just start writing out your argument in the next column? In other words, why write something twice when you can just write it once? You’re better served by starting to write out the arguments you want to make, in this case writing your indict of their date in the 2NC/1NR column instead of recording the date in the 2AC column. The same advice applies to the body of evidence, IE to the warrants of their evidence. If a warrant is worth flowing, you can save time by starting to write out your response in the next column over instead of recording the warrant in the column where they said it. Shorthand Developing a shorthand is critical to being able to multi-task keeping up with flowing your opponent’s (or partner’s) arguments while also working on the other tasks you need to be doing (writing answers to the arguments, etc). Shorthand can vary from person to person, but it’s important you are consistent so you know what your shorthand means and so your partner knows what your shorthand means. You should have both a general shorthand for terms that are very common in debate and a shorthand for words that will come up a lot on the topic (see figure 1). As a backstop, you can always drop the middle vowels from a long word if you don’t have a preset shorthand for something that’s going to take too long to flow. Its stll prty obv wht the wrds mn if u drp the mdle vwls. (Figure 1: common examples of flowing shorthand) The Three Rules of Flowing Now that we’ve covered the basics, I’ve got three rules of flowing for you: start low, keep it horizontally tight, and have lots and lots of vertical spacing. (1) Start low. When in doubt, start flowing low on the page. Drop a full 1/3rd down the page before flowing the first argument. This is to leave room at the top of your flow for an overview. You don’t know for sure your opponent will read a long overview, but you don’t know that they won’t. It’s better to be prepared. Debaters love long overviews! If you’re doing this right, you’ll never have to ask the question “do I need a separate sheet of paper for the overview” again. You won’t, because you’ll always have left room. (2) Keep it horizontally tight. The width of your flow columns should be approximately the distance between the tip of your thumb and its knuckle: about an inch. Any longer than that and your columns are too wide. Remember, flow real estate is most important at the end of the debate. If you’re having trouble getting your columns this narrow, consider changing up your tools. I can’t say enough good things about the Pilot G2 0.38. (3) Vertical spacing. This is the most important and most often violated of the three rules of flowing. Early in the debate, there should be significant vertical space between the arguments you are flowing. At a minimum, you should be able to fit three fingers cleanly between every 1NC argument on-case and every 2AC answer to an off-case (why these speeches? We’ll come back to that soon!). I find myself flowing, three, four arguments max on the front side of a 2AC to an off-case position (see figure 2). Vertical spacing is the most important thing you can do to improve your flow. Debates explode in the middle of the debate, and in unpredictable ways and places. The negative could read 6 off and then narrow to extending just 1 of those in the block. That means they’re going to have time to read 6 answers for every 1 argument you made in the 2AC (see figure 3 for an approximation). The only way you’re going to have room to flow 6 answers to every 2AC argument is with lots of vertical spacing. Otherwise, your flow is going to become a chaotic mess with hard-to-follow lines drawn everywhere attempting to indicate what arguments match up where. Vertical spacing means you’ll never have that problem. (Figure 2: a 2AC to the defense industrial base DA with adequate vertical spacing) What to Flow: What “Sets the Order” Now we return to the central question: what should you be spending time flowing? The advice “flow everything” is good for novices, but there are a lot of things going on in a debate. You need to be reading your opponents evidence, writing cross-x questions, prepping your rebuttal, pulling up the appropriate evidence to respond to an argument, thinking about the interactions between arguments… finding the time to multi-task all of that is not going to be feasible if you are flowing everything. Figuring out what to flow relies on understanding which speech “sets the order.” Once you get that, flowing will become much easier. What do I mean by “sets the order”? Well, we know good debaters engage in line-by-line debate. When you extend a disad in the block, you don’t just explain the DA, read a bunch of new uniqueness cards, new link cards, and new impact cards. You respond to the aff arguments, in the order they were made. This is because for off-case positions, the 2AC sets the order. The 2AC does not need to respond to a DA in the order of the 1NC. Although 2As often do happen to make uniqueness, link, and impact arguments in that order, they just as often do not. That’s not only okay, it’s preferable. It’s often wise to put the impact defense to a disad at the top of the DA’s 2AC, ensuring that it’s the first thing the 1AR and 2AR will cover (as it’s often the most important). Not to mention that the 2AC on a disad is going to make a lot of arguments that don’t fit neatly into the UQ, L, !, mold of the 1NC (thumpers, link uniqueness, internal link answers, even theory sometimes). All that to say, whether it’s a disad, a topicality argument, a counterplan, or a kritik, the 2AC sets the order: the 2NC or 1NR will respond to 2AC arguments on off-case positions in the order they were made. (Figure 3: the block extending the DIB DA. This also showcases the use of boxes to separate parts of the debate mid-debate, which is a great organizational strategy)
With on-case arguments, it’s a little different: the 1NC sets the order for on-case arguments. Think through the same process: the 2AC will respond to case arguments in the order they were made, that’s line-by-line debate 101. However, the 1NC case arguments do not need to be in the same order as the 1AC. That’s because the 1NC sets the order. Those orders will be followed for the rest of the debate. In the 1AR, you’ll never start at the bottom arg in the 2AC of a DA, jump to the middle, down one, and back to the top. That’s pen chaos and it’s hard to flow! Instead, you’ll do line-by-line debate: while you’re not going for every argument, you’ll still address the arguments you are extending in the order they were made in the 2AC. That way, instead of jumping around haphazardly, the judge’s pen is moving down the flow top to bottom (making it easier for them to keep up with the arguments you’re making). So what does that have to do with flowing? Flowing is incredibly important once the order has been set. Before the order has been set, your flow doesn’t affect the order arguments will be addressed for the rest of the debate. So before the order has been set, there’s a lot you can get away with not flowing. The next and final section will go speech-by-speech to provide advice on whether you should be flowing. Flowing by the Speeches Before the debate: lots of young debaters pre-flow their 1AC or 1NC arguments. My advice to you is don’t do this. Don’t pre-flow. There are two reasons. First, you should know your aff and your 1NC off-case arguments like the back of your hand (and you shouldn’t read an argument you don’t understand). If you’re adequately prepared, if you understand your args, pre-flowing won’t give you anything you don’t already have inside your head (and if you don’t understand your args, copying the tags down real quick isn’t going to fix that problem). One quasi-exception: if you have heavily modularized arguments, like an advantage where you often change the impacts, or a DA with several different possible links you can read, it’s totally fine to jot down just a word or two to notate which module you’re reading. But that’s just a word or two- not pre-flowing your whole speech. The second reason not to pre-flow is you’re burning a column that you could use later. Remember, all columns are not created equal. You don’t need a 1AC column because you should know what the aff says. But by not using that column, you’re saving more space for later (and remember, it’s the 1NC that sets the order on case, another reason you don’t need a 1AC column- ever). You don’t need a 1NC column for off-case arguments because it’s the 2AC that sets the order for off-case arguments. This brings us to the 1AC. The above advice should inform your flowing during the 1AC. During the 1AC, no one should be flowing (except the judge- these rules don’t apply to the judge, the judge should be flowing everything- the 1AC, cross-xes, cards: everything). The 1A is reading, of course. The 2A is the captain of the aff ship, they know every word of the 1AC- they don’t need to write it down. They’ve got much more important things to do. The 2A should be prepping the 2AC, putting together answers to what they believe the most likely 1NC args will be based on pre-round intel and scouting. The neg also shouldn’t be flowing. You might not know the 1AC as well as the aff, but you know how 1ACs are generally structured. Once you’ve seen one Yemen stability or human rights advantage, you’ve seen them all. Because the 1AC doesn’t set the order, there are more important things for you to be doing. However, the same quasi-exception from before applies: if the 1AC has particularly tricky things worth noting, you can and should jot down just a few words on that. Noting the terminal impact, an atypical link argument, a hidden impact module on the solvency pages- these are all worth jotting down. But this produces a flow with just a few words, not a comprehensive outline of the 1AC. Like I said, the neg has more important things to do. The 2N is splitting time between prepping for cross-x and guiding the overall strategic picture of 1NC construction, and the 1N is actually putting together the 1NC. During the 1NC, everyone should be flowing- but only the case debate. The 1NC sets the order on the case, which means the order 1NC case arguments will be read is the order everyone will follow for the rest of the debate. That means everyone should be flowing them (except the 1N, who is reading; however, the 2N should be backflowing an extra copy of the case debate for them). During the off-case, no one should be flowing. My logic hasn’t changed here: the neg knows their arguments and has more important things to do, and the aff understands the structure of the negative arguments, so they gain more by reading the neg evidence, following our quasi-exception to flow important modular differences, and prepping their next speeches. During the 2AC, everyone should be flowing. The order is now set or being set on every positon. While the 2A is reading, the neg should be multi-tasking: flowing while simultaneously preparing their next speech. The 1A is in overdrive, flowing not just for themselves but also backflowing a second copy of the off-case positions for the 2A (no need to backflow the case, the 2A should be debating the case off their flow). Things get far simpler from here on out. During the 2NC, both aff debaters should be flowing. The 1N should not flow the 2NC: while you should have what I like to call “one ear open” (to make sure something like condo isn’t dropped), the 1N should be focused on preparing the 1NR. 1Ns should never take prep for the 1NR because they get all the 2NC’s prep, the 2NC, and the cross-x of the 2NC. If the 1N is taking prep, it means they were distracted and not focused on prepping the 1NR during the 2NC. Everyone should be flowing the 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR. The 1N flowing the 1AR (and onward), and the 1A flowing the 2NR are vital for you to be able to give advice to your partner. It’s a two person activity, nobody gets to hit the snooze button early. Two brains are better than one, you need to stay in the game to help your partner until it’s over. Even when you think there’s nothing left you can do to affect the outcome of the debate (the neg during the 2AR), you should still be flowing. First, you flowing is a signal to the judge: you’re a hard worker, you want the win, you’re tuned in, and you’re going to know if they mess up the decision (being a jerk in the post-round is bad, but being uninformed is also bad). Second, your flow of the 2AR is a roadmap to beating this team the next time around. They’re boiling down to their best, and their preferred, arguments. They’re unpacking all their spin and nuance. Flowing the 2AR is your guide for how to beat this team in the future. We want to hear from you! Disagree with something we said? Have a question? Feel free to jump in in the comments, we'll be sure to respond! Do you have a topic you’d like us to address in a future post? Email us at [email protected] Go Pokes!
7 Comments
Anonymous HS Debater
3/3/2021 05:24:46 pm
Why no computer flowing? Isn't it much much faster than paper flowing, especially if you're a fast typer? Plus it basically solves all of your flow organization/real estate issues since text can wrap inside one cell and you can move cells around/add more. As an added benefit it becomes a lot easier to go through old flows for redos since you can organize them on your computer with your speech docs.
Reply
Matt Liu
3/5/2021 10:34:12 am
This is a great question, mostly because it calls out an area where I was dogmatic but unwarranted. I think that learning to flow on paper is important to get the mechanics. Good line-by-line is an incredibly important skill, one coaches are constantly bemoaning the loss of. I also have some ambiguous worries about computer real estate (the screen getting too packed), but multiple monitors can theoretically solve that. The best reason is that it is easier to automate your thinking and zone out while flowing on a computer. There's lots of studies on the benefits of writing vs typing for internalizing arguments, which is important for quick recall, making connections, and impromptu speech adjustments. There are definitely perks to flowing on a computer (though I don't think going through old flows is one of them, I organize all my flows from the year in an accordion file which works fine), which is why I know a lot of coaches teach that you should debate on paper but it's fine to judge on a computer (I know I prefer judges who pull out legal paper though : ). To be honest, I teach, both at camp and for my debaters, that you should flow on paper. If you learn my way (either at camp or UW) and you still decide you prefer the computer, I might troll you but I definitely won't stop you.
Reply
HS Debater
3/5/2021 12:54:13 pm
Hi, thanks for the response! You make an excellent point about internalizing your arguments. I have found that when I flow on computer I physically type out whole sentences of what I'm going to say then read off my flow rather than thinking of ideas and articulating them on the spot, which is probably going to limit me in the long run. My season is over, but I'll definitely give paper another try in practice rounds =)
Anonymous HS Debater
7/19/2023 10:10:05 pm
Great guide! Ultra specific question - should the 2N attempt to flow parts of the 2NC that were typed in their speech doc, and if so, when? I often find myself forgetting arguments I'd made in my speech doc in the 2NC when giving my 2NR because they didn't come up when flowing the 1NR, and be annoyed with myself because of this.
Reply
Matt Liu
7/20/2023 01:54:47 pm
This is a great question! I think as much of the debate as possible should "live on the flow", ie, the 2N should prepare as much of the debate as they can on their flow rather than in a doc. Of course, cards and args prepared before the round starts are going to be in the doc, but everything else (every arg you think of in the round) should ideally, in my mind, be on your flow. That will get some, or even a lot, of args on your flow.
Reply
Muna
2/24/2024 08:01:44 pm
This was a really helpful article. I'm trying to get better at by practicing flowing online rounds. I have a few questions about improving at flowing.
Reply
Matt Liu
2/25/2024 09:03:20 pm
Thanks for the great questions! As far as flowing folks talking fast, there's no super easy answer. Practice is definitely the best response, so your idea of flowing online debates is great! I think it's worth taking into account that it might not be you -- some debaters just aren't as clear as they should be! In fact, there's a pretty good lesson here, because I bet if you can't understand the debates, the judge is *at best* struggling to. So don't emulate those unclear debaters! The other thing is that sometimes debates are hard to flow not because you can't understand the rate-of-speech, but because you're not familiar with the jargon being used (either topic-specific concepts or debate jargon). That also gets better with practice and experience though!
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|