Argument Tracker for Block Files
- Brett Boelkens
- Sep 10
- 8 min read
Updated: Sep 13
Kankee Briefs has produced a lot of block files over our existence, a total of 1000+ pages to date, so I hope it’s not inaccurate to say that we know a thing or two about how to make one. This article is about a file called an “argument tracker,” which is a tool similar to flowing to assist you with creating block files, tracking what arguments exist, what arguments still need blocks, and what arguments you already have blocks for.
Linked below is the spreadsheet that will be referenced below, which you can use a template with extra features like color coding with in-built conditional formatting. Alternatively, you can easily make your own argument tracker in Google Sheets or Microsoft Excel by making a few headers and a table.
BACKGROUND
Most debate teams are in fact teams, meaning that multiple people will work on each block file collaboratively. Group cooperation inevitably runs the risk of coordination problems, meaning it’s commonplace for debate teams to have issues related to missing or late research assignments, or not knowing who was responsible for cutting what in a block file. More importantly, if everyone thinks that someone else will answer an argument, and no one does, some arguments will inevitably be missed. That results in last-minute card cutting the night before a tournament, or worse, losing a round due to not being prepared, which could be the reason why you don’t break to out-rounds.
Internally, to produce the Kankee Briefs AT Files with my volunteers, I have an argument tracker in which I periodically add entries to arguments to eventually answer while scouting or researching. Iteratively adding things to research throughout topic research to my spreadsheet allows me to produce a to-do list of assignments for volunteers, as bit-by-bit, I produced a list of what arguments need to be answered and what arguments need to be included in our AT File. Because, ideally, all debate teams should (hopefully) have block files and (again hopefully) work together with their teammates to avoid duplicative and redundant work (like everyone cutting answers to a coercion contention, but no one finding answers to a counterplan), our process of producing block files should be roughly similar.
Think of this process like flowing—you don’t want to not flow, hope that you’ll remember the contention, and end up dropping an argument. Your flow is a to-do list of what arguments need to be answered in your next speech, as any argument that wasn’t answered is a drop. An argument tracker is your to-do list for your block file as much as your flow is a to-do list for a debate; writing down what arguments need to be answered is crucial to ensure nothing is missed.
Finding an argument you might run during research means other people might also run that, which means you need blocks to that. Similarly, most people have access to 1-3 main-line briefs like Kankee, Isegora, VBI, and Champions, all of which include arguments that people might run. And of course there is the OpenCaselist LD Wiki, which via disclosure norms, shows what arguments debaters actually run. While cutting/dredging cards from all three sources, your personal topic research, briefs, and the LD Wiki, it’s helpful to write down what needs to be answered to make sure you answer those arguments.
HOW TO USE ARGUMENT TRACKER
In the first “Neg Arguments for Aff to Answer” column, you can see the list of neg arguments that you, as the aff, need answers to in our block file.
If needed for future explanations, add a source of where that argument was found in the second “Source” column.” This could be something like a specific brief, webpage, or LD Wiki entry. The more specific and detailed an argument is, the more reason you have to add a source to better answer what that argument is. I would recommend adding a source for circuit debate cases with multiple impacts or internal link chains, framework arguments, complex/multi-plank counterplans, or kritiks, as these are not catch-all generic arguments and each has a lot of nuance and things that could be dropped.
In the third “Commonality” column, you can do a personal assessment of how likely you think you will hit that argument. Not all arguments are made equally, meaning some are less worthy of an extensive prep-out compared to others. For instance, innocent convictions and mass incarceration are core generic neg arguments, meaning a disproportionate amount of card cutting time ought to be spent on these arguments compared to fringe, or possibly inferior arguments, like youth plea bargaining or the ban death penalty counterplan. As a general rule, you can expect many debates on innocent convictions and mass incarceration, and very few, if any, debates on youth plea bargaining or the ban death penalty counterplan, so it is illogical to spend an equal amount of time on each.
Similarly, some debate districts have different norms and judging standards that exclude specific types of argumentation, meaning that there’s a near-zero percent chance you’ll encounter certain arguments at certain tournaments, especially if they’re circuit arguments. If you’re a lay debater and attend lay tournaments, you ought to spend less time on circuit arguments unless you’re planning on attending a circuit tournament in the future for a TOC bid.
In the argument tracker, we have the rankings of “Low,” “Mid,” “High,” and “Circuit,” all of whom will be automatically color-coded, to assess how much time should be spent on each argument.
The fourth “Blocks Cut?” column is like a check-box to indicate whether someone cut blocks to answer this argument or not. Of course debate as a game incentivizes debaters to produce more and more cards of increasingly higher quality given debate is competitive. As a matter of technicality, no block file or answer to a specific argument will ever be 100% completed, merely prepped out sufficiently for the purposes of answering that argument and achieving your goals for that tournament.
However, having a tracker to see blocks are missing and incomplete is vital to differentiate between being bad at finding things or your team not having an answer prepped out to that argument.
As blocks are added by debaters, or more ideally, added to the main block file when approved by team/event captain after a quality assurance check, debaters can replace the relevant “nope” with a “yes” for each argument they’ve produced blocks for.
Let's analyze the final, fifth “Card Cutter” column. During a team meeting, everyone can sign-up for what arguments they want to answer and volunteer themselves to answer those specific arguments. Alternatively, a team captain can pre-determine who gets what research assignments based on the relative capabilities of each debater. An “Amy” who is dedicated to the activity and is extremely knowledgeable with circuit debate can be assigned more skill-appropriate tasked compared to a “Hitchcock,” who may need a more rudimentary or basic assignment.
In combination with the “blocks cut” column, the team can track who is not completing their research assignments. If your team removes a debater’s access to the Dropbox for being a free-loader that doesn’t contribute to block files, this is a good means of tracking who is actually contributing.
TIPS
LD Wiki Source Examples - Some arguments, particularly those oriented towards circuit debate, require you to cross-reference what the specifics of that argument are. You should debate arguments, not labels; merely because something is titled/named something does not mean that label is representative of what the argument is. When doing tournament scouting, take care to read the specifics of each scenario, as shown in the cartel example above, not all arguments are
For instance, the cartel advantage is a commonplace aff argument on the current Sept-Oct plea bargaining topic—catch-all generic Mexico/cartels blocks are insufficient to answer each one. In a limited, cursory search, I found at least three varieties of a cartel advantage: nacro-femicide, economy, and Mexico state collapse. You might be well prepped-out for the Mexico state collapse scenario, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the economy version of that advantage, which uses different internal links to reach different impacts. Similarly, prepping out both of these advantage versions is insufficient to answer the structural violence, narco-femicide version of advantage, as that requires you to prep out the framework debate and think of whether you want to use an alternative framework like utilitarianism or beat them at their level.
Reminder on Worksheet Tabs - In case you're unfamiliar with worksheet tabs, on the bottom-left of Google Sheets/Excel will be a list of each tab within that file. When you download the file, it will, by default, be open on the "Aff AT" tab, where you add neg arguments for the aff to answer. When listing your aff arguments for the neg to answer, click on the "Neg AT" tab, and do the same process as you would do on the aff on this separate tab. We have the two tabs to differentiate the aff and neg block file assignments. If you do use this as a team file, ensure that your team mates understand that there are multiple tabs; otherwise they may entirely miss their neg block file assignments from not knowing there is another tab.
Examples in Template File - Additionally, I have included the example that was described above in the third tab, which is reference material if you need to look at an example. I have also included a fourth tab which includes the color-coding scheme and what words cause the conditional formatting to fill-in that cell with that color.
Commonality Measurer - particularly if you're in novice or JV, it is hard to judge how common an argument will be on the circuit. An imperfect measure is how often briefs and LD Wiki entries include that argument. The spreadsheet linked below is a tool that allows you to tally each and every occurrence of an argument on a topic—such as those encountered at a tournament, in a brief file, topic research, etc.—and the file will automatically count how many times those arguments appeared and rank them.
In the example above, you can see for the 2021 Sept-Oct medical intellectual property rights topic there were several core affs (developing countries, vaccine waivers, and patent waivers), but only one core neg generic (innovation DA). For the 2025 Sept-Oct plea bargaining topic, if you did a similar exercise, you would find that court clog, cartels, and informants are core affs, and that wrongful/innocent convictions, coercion, and mass incarceration are core negative arguments. In both circumstances, all arguments have relative ranks to see what argument ought to be prioritized compared to each other.
File Structure Naming - For a final tip, copy paste this file into your file structure for each topic so that you remember that this is a universal best practice that you ought to use for each topic (if you're unfamiliar with how to set-up a file structure, see our article linked here). This will be your template that you will fill-out with topic specific information when you start to prep that topic. Because it is a template document, make sure to change the template file name to make sure its easily findable and you won't confuse one topic's argument tracker with that of another topic. Similarly, on the top-left is a template header; fill-out the year, the topic period (i.e. Sept-Oct, Nov-Dec, Jan-Feb, etc.) and the name of the topic.
If you have any questions on how to use this template, please email us at karkingkankee@gmail.com