If First Opposition accepts the definition, can I then still challenge it?
Can we counterprop?
Should we stick to the counterprop that first opposition made?
Yes, but you aren’t in quite the same position as the team opposite you. The second opposition team is not hostage to the tactical choices of the first opposition team in the manner in which second proposition must follow the definition of first proposition, and at least gesture at defending all of it. The proposition teams are like different parties in one governing coalition. The opposition bench is simply two opposition parties, who may oppose the motion for entirely different reasons. As such, you can decide to leave afirst op’s counterprop undefended, if you have new arguments and analysis ready, which demonstrate that the motion must fall, irrespective of what we might think of the counterprop. That is not the same as presenting an entirely new counterprop, which would indeed be knifing.
Do we have to bring an extension, too?
But isn’t it my job to kill the extension given by second proposition?
What if I only have time to do one? Which is more important?
These tasks are not mutually exclusive. Your selection of material in third opposition should be guided by considering what it is that is hurting you at that moment. In some debates, the proposition extension will add nothing to a brilliant first prop. In such a debate, it would probably be sensible to focus your energies on destroying the case of first prop. That, if done in sufficient depth, would count as an extension. In some debates the proposition will be of such paucity that you will probably have to focus on distinguishing yourself from first opposition, in which case bringing big new arguments will be more important. This will inevitably be a judgment call based on what is significant at that point in any given debate.
What should I do in the summary?
Summarise the debate. See the description of the proposition summary above. Bear in mind that the prohibition on new material is even more stringent here, because there is no possibility of proposition responding to it.
This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.