Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bluegorilla

5 minutes of theory in the 2AR

Recommended Posts

Is the best way to give this sort of speech based solely on depicting the horrible world the neg justifies with whatever abusive thing they did, for instance...conditionality? Would it be more persuasive to spend time articulating what the neg allows for by running conditional args, or is there another specific type of argument that can be run that would be more persuasive overall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, depicting the world they justify won't necessarily win you the ballot. If you're only going for potential abuse, you need really good reasons potential abuse is a voting issue.

Even though it sounds obvious, few debaters actually impact their theory arguments. Who cares if the neg's strat resulted in time skews?

A much better and persuasive 2AR would involve pointing out specific abuse in the round that would have been prevented had the cp been dispo or unconditional. A CP and DA that would force you to double turn yourself to answer or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

if there is no specific abuse in the round it's all good. you can still win.

 

frame it as one interp vs. the other; the level of potential abuse indicates the difference between the two worlds. judge should pick the better of the two interps and then proceed to the implications of the interp that were outlined earlier. as long as your story is clear throughout, you can win that way. you don't have to rely on friggin "omg timeskoo" or "NOT FAIR!". any reasonable judge will find this persuasive, especially when the other team makes responses like "oh but we didnt do any abuse" the entire round and little else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I think it's safe to assume that a 2AR going 5 mins theory isn't going to go for potential abuse...

 

A case that might be consistent with bluegorilla's hypothetical conditionality example would be that as the aff you put lots of answers on the cp including condo bad and then they drop it in the 2nr.

 

as for the original question, I think your two best bets are pointing out exactly how you were abused in round, how that's bad, and then from there going into what you said; depicting the world where the neg is justified as categorically impossible for an affirmative ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and why wouldn't a 2ar go 5 mins of theory with potential abuse as the criterion? hmmm? go ahead give us some reasons it's safe to assume a 2ar WON'T do it. because i know a couple 2a's that would do it happily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and why wouldn't a 2ar go 5 mins of theory with potential abuse as the criterion? hmmm? go ahead give us some reasons it's safe to assume a 2ar WON'T do it. because i know a couple 2a's that would do it happily.

 

Those 2A's probably blow.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and why wouldn't a 2ar go 5 mins of theory with potential abuse as the criterion? hmmm? go ahead give us some reasons it's safe to assume a 2ar WON'T do it. because i know a couple 2a's that would do it happily.

 

the most common answer back to potential abuse is "Judge, don't vote us down for something we haven't done". Going for potential abuse in the 2ar legitimizes their claims by saying: "okay so maybe you didn't do anything, but man, if you had, that would've sucked." The fact that there's no abuse in round means that no matter how abusive the world that they justify is, it remains possible for a team to do what they did and not abuse you in round.

 

Even if you frame it as you having the better interp, the implications to your interp rely on the shady word 'could'. "In the world they justify, the neg team could do this, they could do that" but you can't guarantee that teams will do this, and the neg you're debating is proof that they won't necessarily do it.

 

I recognize that the language I used in my first post was a bit cocky (I just looked at it a second time and was like damn that was arrogant), I mean I'm sure it can be done, I just think potential abuse is way too flimsy an argument to bank the debate on.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in most condo bad debates, the aff is going to argue that conditionality is bad for in round abuse, as it hurts strategic options for the 2ac, and maybe sucks their time

 

you have an uphill battle to win if you're trying to convince the judge that your 2ac strategic options were skewed by the conditional argument that they're still going for. If they drop it, your arguments carry a lot more weight. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

if by the 2ar, your story on condo bad is "they could have done x, which would have REALLY screwed us over", you're probably going to lose.

 

exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

potential abuse - "the fact that they could spike out of our stuff whenever they want is bad"

 

in-round abuse - "the fact that they skewed our strat is bad"

 

 

there's the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah tommy's on point here. yall are assuming the type of theory debates you're used to having and assuming the theory shell was the type of argument you're used to shelling out and extending. that's maybe not the best assumption in the world. especially since, if it's not and your responses are, for example:

the most common answer back to potential abuse is "Judge, don't vote us down for something we haven't done". Going for potential abuse in the 2ar legitimizes their claims by saying: "okay so maybe you didn't do anything, but man, if you had, that would've sucked." The fact that there's no abuse in round means that no matter how abusive the world that they justify is, it remains possible for a team to do what they did and not abuse you in round.

then the 2ar can, like tommy suggested, probably win in less than 5 minutes. i'm thinking 2. and as for this:

Even if you frame it as you having the better interp, the implications to your interp rely on the shady word 'could'. "In the world they justify, the neg team could do this, they could do that" but you can't guarantee that teams will do this, and the neg you're debating is proof that they won't necessarily do it.

this is not responsive at all, since the affirmative is not necessarily advocating that you created abuse. the affirmative probably doesn't rely on winning that abuse happens, either.

I recognize that the language I used in my first post was a bit cocky (I just looked at it a second time and was like damn that was arrogant), I mean I'm sure it can be done, I just think potential abuse is way too flimsy an argument to bank the debate on.

it is the way you're assuming its run, granted. doesn't mean it always is.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i disagree. because 99.99% of judges despise theory debates, there is a huge bias against them. most judges will thus be sympathetic to the neg's reasonability claims, and will prefer to not vote on conditionaility, even if it would potentially be better if they had ran it dispositionaly. if you want to win condo bad in front of most judges, you need a solid in round abuse story, potential abuse doesn't make much sense in the context of condo bad.

only because debaters suck at theory.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said earlier in this thread, it's all about how you frame the discussion.

 

Paint a picture for the judge about what debate would be like if the practice-in-question were performed every single round. Make sure you impact it out further than just "it wouldn't be fair" or "not educational".

 

Talk about how it harms competitive equity. When one side has an uneven playing field, debate becomes less about the issues at hand, thus reducing the amount of topic-specific discussion. Additionally, tie in that critical thinking skills are not gained by allowing the practice-in-question to be tolerated, and that critical thinking is the most important lesson we learn from debate. Lastly, stay away from "death of the activity" arguments, because they really just aren't convincing and slightly undermine your credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AR theory debate needs to do a couple things to win the round:

 

A. Extend the violation. [The negative is schooling us on the CP/Case debate because we put more offenseon the critique and they kicked it. This is the obvious reason why Dispositional worlds is bad].

 

B. Extend your reasons to prefer. Make sure you are making points with warrants. Saying "Time-skew juhdge". is not a argument. Saying "lack of debate because they force a round in which there is a lack of qualatitive discussion because of x" IS a argument.

 

*Don't extend them alll. Extend what you are winning. But more importantly - extend offense. Not defense. Remember, 100% defense just means they get zero offense, but not a reason why you win. The will always win some offense if you are defensive.

 

C. Answere their arguments! THis is where debaters fail at theory - you need to make SURE that you answer their standards/reasons to prefer. YOU MUST! The difference between good theory debaters and bad theory debaters is extending your arguments versus answering their arguments.

 

D. Impact/Voters - remember - potential abuse is just a much a voter than ira.

 

Education, Fairness, whatever - all need warrants. work for the w.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
only because debaters suck at theory.

 

Are you retarded? How does that statement make any fucking sense? Who else would have theory about debate to begin with, fucking farmers? Thats like saying man if scientist didn't suck at researching.

Edited by MasterDb8erollie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you retarded? How does that statement make any fucking sense? Who else would have theory about debate to begin with, fucking farmers? Thats like saying man if scientist didn't suck at researching.

^^ This guy writes "clash checks" and "lit checks" in his T blocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This guy answers arguments by saying completely irrelevant shit all over the flow and pretending their is nothing to respond to.

Edited by MasterDb8erollie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this thread and became dumber.

 

If the 2AR is winning competing interpretations good (easy trick to do this is to concede it on a T flow and argue that theory comes before T), then the aff doesn't need to illustrate abuse - they only need to illustrate that in the world of the neg's interpretation (or, if they don't have one, its even better - the aff gets to bandwagon about how any and everything is possible), debate is worse off than in the world of the affs.

 

Granted - in-round abuse helps, but it's largely unnecessary if you're going for a competing interpretations framework. Basically, everyone besides Tommy and Sevv are making no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
potential abuse doesn't make much sense in the context of condo bad.

 

No. The status of a K/CP/etc. alters the 2AC's time allocation/strategy.

 

 

***

 

I feel like this needs to be said. Seems like everyone in this thread views "abuse" as a terminal impact. Well, it's not. The two terminal impacts are fairness and education. When going for theory, you need to explain the importance of both. (Fairness is a pre-requisite to education, encourages participation, etc) (Education is the point of the activity, facilitates activism/real-world change, etc) All too frequently debaters just cry that they've been abused! And THOSE theory debates are the ones that 99.9% of all judges hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...