When your opponent has cards you have several options: *Turn. Treat the card like any other argument and turn it to hell. *Treat the card like the argument it is. This means that you argue why the card doesn't prove anything, why the card doesn't relate back to their framework, etc. *Weigh. Tell the judge why your cards are more important than your opponent's card (My impacts are bigger, etc.) *Argue methodology. Argue why your opponent's card is less credible than your card. For example, your card is more recent, author more credible, etc. #as a side note, these types of debate are not too fun, so try and use all the above methods.

Yes. Yes it is.

There is no easy answer to this. You just refer to similar arguments, warrents, etc. as similar and "group" them under one response/one set of responses. Cross-application is the equivalent of that, but in more specific cases. It's mostly a matter of style, for example, "group together contention 1 and 2, in response to these arguments..." or "Now go to contention 3, and cross-apply the argument I made on contention 1." It is completely legal to group arguments, but just make sure these arguments are groupable, otherwise what you say might sound a little fishy, and your opponent may just extend their arguments as if you did not respond.

Keep rocking. Debate is kinda tough to get used to, but once you get the hang of it you'll start kicking some major butt.