Summary In Action

Example Round Background

For our example, we will be utilizing a debate from the Tournament of Champions, which is widely regarded as the most prestigious high school tournament in the US. The topic is Resolved: The United Nations should abolish permanent membership in its Security Council.

‍Specifically, we will be analyzing the first summary, given by the Negative Team. Before going any further, please watch the speech and take notes. If you are feeling ambitious it would be helpful to watch the round from the beginning. 

Watch Video

Summary Detailed Notes

The negative team (Saratoga) begins by asking the judge a question: “What is more important to the P5 countries, that they tell you are so selfish, their own direct national interests or how other countries perceive them?”

They provide the answer that the P5–Russia, China, France, The United States, and the United Kingdom—will always act in their best interest, citing China. Russia’s, and the U.S.’s violations of international law. 

Saratoga argues that the affirmative (Langley) “ live in a world of fantasy where after you pass and abolish permanent membership, somehow Russia just agrees to give up its war in Ukraine.” But the negative is arguing for a pragmatic approach that aligns the interests of the P5 with the rest of the world. 

After giving their opening judge instruction they do some weighing: Arguing that while the affirmative team says 60 million people will die without reform the Council has resolved 90% of conflicts so the alternative to the affirmative’s 60 million is 600 million dead. Ultimately arguing that the judges should “prioritize preventing global war from escalating.”

Then the negative moves on to their first argument of diplomacy. They begin by responding to the attack that the Great Power War would never happen. 

In response, the negative argued the UN Security Council is what has prevented crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis from escalating and that nuclear war would be caused by miscalculation so mutually assured destruction does not apply. 

Saratoga then went on their second argument about the UN collapse. Here, they extend or summarize their argument from their constructive that the only reason the P5 remains in the UN is to maintain their veto power, but when you affirm that goes away so the P5 leave the UN which prevents any cooperation amongst the UNSC. 

Langley levied a few responses. First, the P5 wouldn’t leave because they care about their influence. Saratoga simply redirected them to the initial overview in summary. 

Then, the affirmative had argued that there would still be enough money to run the U.N. but Saratoga pointed to the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations. 

Finally, Langley said that funding is decreasing currently but the negative argues that if the P5 were to pull out that would collapse the UN’s budget which is even worse.

After extending their own case, Saratoga moved on to attacking the affirmative. They give one overarching response, saying that the P5 will never follow a resolution that’s against their interests so any attempt at accountability would be ineffective. 

Argument-To-Argument Structure

Saratoga followed a modified version of the argument-to-argument structure discussed previously. They began with the judge's directive statement telling them how they should view the round. The framing for them was strategic because it assumes the P5 are self-interested and makes the question of whether they will then follow their interests seem like a given. 

Additionally, the negative spent most of their time on their second argument of U.N. collapse. This is because The U.N. is a pre-requisite to the affirmative's contention of holding the P5 accountable. If there is no U.N. there is no accountability. 

You can see a notated document here walking through the strategic choices made by Saratoga. 

Key Takeaways

• Prioritize an argument:  While the negative touches on numerous arguments, they focused the majority of their time on the overview and UN collapse.
• Weighing: The negative gives the judge a lens to view the round, establishing a framework beneficial to them. Read more about weighing. 

What's Next

In the next post, we will look at the final focus!