Jump to content
ZzZzZzZzZzZz

evidence in 1nr

Recommended Posts

Is it acceptable to introduce new evidence in the 1nr if it makes the same point as previous evidence or arguments? i.e. the new evidence only strengthens previous arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not ever.

 

Don't listen to her.

 

Yes, as long as they're not new arguments, just extensions of old ones, it's fine. But reading a whole lot of new ev is NOT a good idea. You should focus more on setting the 2NR up to pound the aff into the ground, so some smart cross-applying will do more than any amount of evidence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it acceptable to introduce new evidence in the 1nr if it makes the same point as previous evidence or arguments? i.e. the new evidence only strengthens previous arguments.

The 1NR is generally considered to have a fair amount of leeway with regards to making 'new' arguments.

 

So it's okay to have evidence that makes the same point as previous arguments (such as a uniqueness wall on a politics disad or something). It's also okay to make basically new arguments in response to arguments that were first presented in the 2AC (for example, the 1NR can make analytics or read evidence that answers a link turn on a politics disad).

 

Basically, as long as there is 2AC or 1NC ink that you can trace back the 1NR argument to, it's legitimate.

 

The only thing that isn't okay is to spout entirely new ink on the flow. For example, an entirely new offcase or a new set of case turns would be considered to be illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tl dr

 

The only thing that isn't okay is to spout entirely new ink on the flow. For example, an entirely new offcase or a new set of case turns would be considered to be illegitimate.

 

 

 

uh, who made you the authority on this? i've seen plently of teams read new case turns in the 1NR without being voted down for cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no actual rules when it comes to when you should and shouldn't make arguments. Although most judges will personally interpret whether they should and shouldn't evaluate and argument that are brought later in the debate, but thats all based on their own opinions on it.

The general opinion in the community is that brand new arguments like off cases or case turns would not be accepted when making a decision if they were made in the 1ar or later. This doesn't necessarily mean that you would be voted down, it just means that siad argument would effectivly become non-existant.Some judges will accept this arguments unless the other team claims some sort of abuse off of it. But most of the time, new arguments will not lead you to be "voted down."

Remember, there is no cheating argument in debate, thats what theory is for ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, who made you the authority on this? i've seen plently of teams read new case turns in the 1NR without being voted down for cheating.

 

its his opinion, and there are certainly legitimate theory arguments supporting his claim.

 

it would be pretty abusive for the neg to read an entirely new DA in the 1NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, who made you the authority on this? i've seen plently of teams read new case turns in the 1NR without being voted down for cheating.

Because the judge in the back of the room is always the ultimate authority. And if I happen to be wielding the ballot, woe be upon those who decline to acknowledge that fact.

 

Is it a universal opinion? No. Is it my opinion? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tl dr
Because the judge in the back of the room is always the ultimate authority. And if I happen to be wielding the ballot, woe be upon those who decline to acknowledge that fact.

 

Is it a universal opinion? No. Is it my opinion? Yes.

 

 

 

You just completely missed the point.

 

YOU are not an authority. What you say is not particularly relevant here. Your post was not just your opinion; you wrote it as if it was some type of falsifiable fact. Beeker gave the best advice in this thread. Your totalizing claims will simply confuse novices who assume your opinion is a universal truth, when in reality, you are probably in the minority, as far as judge philosophies go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to this:

 

Basically, as long as there is 2AC or 1NC ink that you can trace back the 1NR argument to, it's legitimate.

 

The only thing that isn't okay is to spout entirely new ink on the flow. For example, an entirely new offcase or a new set of case turns would be considered to be illegitimate.

I think teams that focus on using this strategy--sandbagging new arguments in the 1NR are cheating themselves out of debate.

 

As the 1ar, however, I would rather be in the position of answering the actual arguments rather diverting attention from the issues.

 

Most teams resorting to this strategy (except in the highest caliber round--and even then it may be questionable) are hiding something and running scared for some reason.

 

On the flip side...does that mean the 1ar can run new add on advantages--especially in "answering" the new arguments?

 

Your totalizing claims will simply confuse novices who assume your opinion is a universal truth, when in reality, you are probably in the minority, as far as judge philosophies go.
Nick never said in each and every case or every judge does this. He was citing a general rule based on his albeit limited experience--no different from you I suspect. Nicks opinion may be the majority opinion in many local circuits and your opinion is likely the majority opinion in more national competitive circuits.

 

Cool your jets please. Thanks. After all, we are a community--lest we allow ego or technology to allow us to forget that.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the national circuit, the 1NR is considered by most to be a constructive like the 2NC. Based upon that understanding of the role of the 1NR, new evidence is perfectly acceptable.

 

Reading an entirely new off case tends to be less accepted in a lot of regions. Either way you shouldn't be reading new off case in the 1NR because it's strategically disadvantageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the national circuit, the 1NR is considered by most to be a constructive like the 2NC. Based upon that understanding of the role of the 1NR, new evidence is perfectly acceptable.

 

Reading an entirely new off case tends to be less accepted in a lot of regions. Either way you shouldn't be reading new off case in the 1NR because it's strategically disadvantageous.

 

This.

 

There isn't any real reason why new arguments in the 1NR are bad, as long as you aren't shifting your advocacy, just like you could read new case arguments in the 2NC. The 1NR is just an extension of the block. Like you probably could (and should) read a new impact to your politics disad or read more impacts to your Cap k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the national circuit, the 1NR is considered by most to be a constructive like the 2NC. Based upon that understanding of the role of the 1NR, new evidence is perfectly acceptable.

 

Reading an entirely new off case tends to be less accepted in a lot of regions. Either way you shouldn't be reading new off case in the 1NR because it's strategically disadvantageous.

Truth. Reading a new off-case arg in the 1NR gives the 1AR the opportunity to, say, straight-turn your disad and put you in a world of hurt for your last speech (not to mention the time you lose by not developing 1NC arguments).

 

As the the post immediately above, you only want to read new impacts on the politics DA if they turn the aff advantages - otherwise, you can end up in the same situation I just mentioned and overburden the 2NR.

 

On the whole, the 1NR should be focused on making the 2NR's job easier instead of trying to harass the 1AR. Complicating the debate makes your 2NR choices more difficult and gives the 2AR more latitude to simplify the round in the affirmative's favor.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...