Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Okay so i was winning cond bad but apparently did not go all out for it. i was told i should have just str8 done five minutes of condo bad how can you go for 5 mins of condo bad

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, just because you are winning Condo bad doesn't mean you should spend 5 minutes on it.

 

Next, there are multiple ways to 'go-all-out' on conditionality..

 

Dispo. really solves for offense and is a lot more fair..(explain how dispo is fairer)

 

They could kick at any moment, destroys competitive equity.

 

Etc. Just get meta with it, and go through and really provide some clash by elaborating how your points out-weigh.

 

You rarely see any good condo debates because it gets muddled and lacks clash. Hardly ever do high-school condo debates ever weigh the points.

Edited by BIDWINNA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol im not talking about just reading im talking about if your losing on everything else and ur kicking ass on condo bad how do i go all out for 5 mins on it so its a guarantee win

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol im not talking about just reading im talking about if your losing on everything else and ur kicking ass on condo bad how do i go all out for 5 mins on it so its a guarantee win
First off, it should be done in 1ar, as kicking case in 2ar will cause many judges to reflexively vote neg (for good reason). Second, it's never a guaranteed win, as you can't read the judge's mind.

 

third, how to do it: Get deep into the analysis. Describe the ways the 2ac would have been different had the neg not run conditional arguments. And of course, a different 2ac leads to a different block and different rebuttals. The genie simply doesn't fit back in the bottle once a debater takes a stance that is theoretically illegitimate. The very fact that there is a condo bad flow means the aff decided to forgo some amount of direct refutation on neg arguments. Neg will claim that this was a strategic choice and that 2acs need to know how to make wise choices. This is true to some extent, but the neg block can expand the abuse in a big way by pushing the conditional argument (and its NB in the case of a CP) hard and thus forcing the 1ar to spend their time on an argument the 2nr is fairly likely to kick. I suspect this is what happened if you were winning condo bad but losing everything else. When I've seen rounds like this, and aff had the guts to go straight theory in rebuttals, aff usually wins.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what brett said and just a few more pointers

 

you should probably talk about why conditionality being bad comes first and weigh condo vs other arguments such as topicality.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, it should be done in 1ar, as kicking case in 2ar will cause many judges to reflexively vote neg (for good reason).

 

Funny, considering teams win on condo bad pretty often, and usually the only 5-minute condo speech is the 2ar...

 

It's not really "kicking case." You're just saying condo is bad which is a reason the neg should lose. I don't see why judges would reflexively vote neg because of that..? They will probably hold the 2ar to the 1ar and discount new arguments, perhaps that's what you're getting at.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, considering teams win on condo bad pretty often, and usually the only 5-minute condo speech is the 2ar...

 

It's not really "kicking case." You're just saying condo is bad which is a reason the neg should lose. I don't see why judges would reflexively vote neg because of that..? They will probably hold the 2ar to the 1ar and discount new arguments, perhaps that's what you're getting at.

First off, it is kicking case. Arguing for an aff ballot on grounds other than the plan is a beneficial policy is kicking case.

 

Second, switching over in 1ar has huge strategic benefits, because at the beginning of the 1ar the Aff has ten minutes of time to tell the abuse story, and neg only five to explain their actions. Even if you wait for 2ar to go straight theory, there should be significant time spent in 1ar on this flow. While I've seen teams win in 2ar by spending five minutes on something that got 20 seconds in 1ar, I have never voted for such an argument, and probably never will. I presume most sensible judges are more or less in agreement that radical strategy shifts in 2ar are the single best reason to intervene.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, it is kicking case. Arguing for an aff ballot on grounds other than the plan is a beneficial policy is kicking case.

 

Second, switching over in 1ar has huge strategic benefits, because at the beginning of the 1ar the Aff has ten minutes of time to tell the abuse story, and neg only five to explain their actions. Even if you wait for 2ar to go straight theory, there should be significant time spent in 1ar on this flow. While I've seen teams win in 2ar by spending five minutes on something that got 20 seconds in 1ar, I have never voted for such an argument, and probably never will. I presume most sensible judges are more or less in agreement that radical strategy shifts in 2ar are the single best reason to intervene.

 

a 5 minute 2ar extension of 20 seconds of 1ar arguments is very very sketchy, true. however, anyone that is able to make 5 minutes of good arguments on something like condo bad is probably smart enough to know that and will put in a good minute or so - that way, you don't have to be making any really new args in the 2ar. switching over in the 1ar is hugely unstrategic because it shows your hand to the neg before you really need to. you might as well keep multiple strategic options for the 2ar.

 

also, i think describing going for theory as "kicking case" is a bit of a misnomer. most judges acknowledge that the aff can run theory and can win on it, so this type of kicking case is largely harmless.

 

also, it seems like 90% of your posts are asterisks to sound (or not so sound) advice saying shit judges won't buy it. we know that lay judges don't like strategic things and would rather you just talked pretty -- winning those ballots is far less complex and not really worthy of a discussion because it's pretty straightforward. novices can learn how to talk pretty on youtube, they're on this forum because they're seeking help on more complex issues.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the phrase "kicking case" implies the wrong type of abuse story you want to be telling the judge. Condo shouldn't be some random theory, it should be laying out how because of the negatives conditional advocacy's its impossible to win the impact calc, solvency, whatever debate. Its not that your kicking case, but that you're trying to prove that their condo stuff makes it impossible to ever win case.

Edited by highlandmike
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a 5 minute 2ar extension of 20 seconds of 1ar arguments is very very sketchy, true. however, anyone that is able to make 5 minutes of good arguments on something like condo bad is probably smart enough to know that and will put in a good minute or so - that way, you don't have to be making any really new args in the 2ar. switching over in the 1ar is hugely unstrategic because it shows your hand to the neg before you really need to. you might as well keep multiple strategic options for the 2ar.
To each their own. I do strongly advise to never go for theory in 1ar unless you are going to spend enough time on it to make meaningful analysis (I would say 1:30 is about as short as it could be) on theory. This, imo, leaves too little time to present winning arguments against the (presumably) abusive variety of positions coming out of block. So you're only keeping options open in the case 2nr is stupid. How to beat a dumb 2nr isn't worthy of a post.

 

also, i think describing going for theory as "kicking case" is a bit of a misnomer. most judges acknowledge that the aff can run theory and can win on it, so this type of kicking case is largely harmless.
I think of aff arguing for the ballot entirely on principles absent in the 1ac is kicking the case. You don't. Fine. We can agree that radical strategy shifts between the 1ar and 2ar are suspect at best, can we not?

 

also, it seems like 90% of your posts are asterisks to sound (or not so sound) advice saying shit judges won't buy it. we know that lay judges don't like strategic things and would rather you just talked pretty -- winning those ballots is far less complex and not really worthy of a discussion because it's pretty straightforward. novices can learn how to talk pretty on youtube, they're on this forum because they're seeking help on more complex issues.
90% of my posts are in the current events section and have little to do with debate. Of those I post on debate, I do focus pretty heavily on judge perception. I do this for one reason, and one alone: it's the only thing that matters if you plan on winning. I am not a lay judge, and I don't care about "talking pretty." I do care if an argument makes sense and whether it offers a chance for a productive debate. When I talk about the sacred cows many in the cross-x cult have come to worship with less than the reverence you feel, it's because it fails on at least one of those two fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly related question...

How do you do FIVE minutes of condo bad?!

e.g. for dispo, I took a bunch of theory files and put together what I thought would be the best in-round and added some of my own... but even if I use all 9 points on why it's good/bad, I get about 3:40 (125 wpm - my league is mostly lay judges so we have to keep it really slow and comprehensive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slightly related question...

How do you do FIVE minutes of condo bad?!

e.g. for dispo, I took a bunch of theory files and put together what I thought would be the best in-round and added some of my own... but even if I use all 9 points on why it's good/bad, I get about 3:40 (125 wpm - my league is mostly lay judges so we have to keep it really slow and comprehensive).

Take each of your points and explain with specific, in round examples, how it is important to maintaining fair/rational debate. Most theory blocks are written in abstract language (though probably not in a league with mostly lay judges, I hope) and have very small places to insert in round analysis. I presume you have a point in your 1ar block which is "strategy skew" or "time skew." Take those, and explain how the one choice (dispo, condo, whatever) neg made affects every decision the 2ac makes, and how different (better) the debate is when teams actually advocate their positions. That's the key: make those lay judges know that neg could have done something else, and what kind of debate it would have been. If they believe that debate would have been better than the one they're watching, they will likely vote for you. I think a good way to start a pure theory 1ar in front of a lay judge is to say something like, "Our opponents are sitting there hoping I am going to spend 3 minutes talking about that "conditional" counterplan they ran in 1nc, so they can promptly drop it and spend all their 2nc on the DAs we would be forced to inadequately answer. We're not going to do that. We're going to spend five minutes discussing why their approach creates an unfair strategic situation for aff and more importantly, how much better debates are with concrete advocacies."

 

Also...I actually recommend theory as an option of last resort in front of lay judges. It's far too easy to fall into debate-ese when talking theory, and lay judges will usually accept the easiest argument to understand: "drop the arg, not the team."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Our opponents are sitting there hoping I am going to spend 3 minutes talking about that "conditional" counterplan they ran in 1nc, so they can promptly drop it and spend all their 2nc on the DAs we would be forced to inadequately answer. We're not going to do that. We're going to spend five minutes discussing why their approach creates an unfair strategic situation for aff and more importantly, how much better debates are with concrete advocacies."

Wait, so I would bring this up in the 1AR? Like this?

1nc: condo cp + say 3 das.

2ac: condo bad shell

2nc: condo good? + 1 da

1nr: 2 das

1AR: 5 mins condo bad: extending 2AC + responding to their points + giving real-world in-round analysis of what they could've run, reject the team, not the argument

 

But then what happens after that?

2nr: condo good etc. + extension of (dropped) disads + reject the arg, not the team

2ar: ... reject the team not the arg? wouldn't I have to spend another 5 minutes of theory here?

Edited by willmalson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you'd spend the whole 2ar on theory as well. A lot of that will be discussing the "drop the team" argument, obviously. In 2ar it's perfectly legitimate to explain that dropping the argument (and not the team) rewards the "illegitimate" construct of the 1nc by forcing a neg ballot. This is generally more persuasive in front of flow judges than lay judges, as are all theory arguments.

 

The idea of an a-priori theory voter is something many lay judges just won't go for. At least once a year I have a lay judge ask me in a judge's lounge if "X" is against the rules after they've seen a theory debate. When I tell them there are no specifically written rules about theory (or T) and it's up to the judge to decide whether the offending team was guilty and whether it was worth the ballot in and of itself, they almost invariably decide to vote on policy arguments. (aka, against the team running theory) I've also been among the two twice on 2-1 decisions for aff on theory debates where myself and the other experienced CX judge went for condo bad, and the third judge (in both cases not CX judges) decided to vote on what seemed relevant to the resolution. In both cases, the 1ar was five minutes of theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright - so I really get it, here would be, what I guess would be all-out theory against dispo.

 

2AC:

1. Irresponsible negation.

2. Strategy and time skew.

3. Creates multiple worlds.

a) Destroys aff offense

B) Isn’t reciprocal

c) Hurts the quality

d) Infinitely regressive

e) Inconsistent advocacies

f) Not real world

4. Reject the negative.

 

1AR:

1. Extend 2AC points

2. AT: Puts the aff in control.

3. AT: all args are dispo

4. AT: Perm checks abuse

5. AT: Promotes logical decision-making.

6. AT: Increases strategic thinking.

7. AT: Real world.

8. AT: 2NR checks abuse.

 

2AR:

1. Extend all points

2. Stress "reject the team" like a mofo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also strongly suggest an underview at the end of 1ar, explaining what the round would have been like absent the dispo CP; two comparable advocacies from which to choose the best as opposed to god-knows how many possible neg advocacies vs one aff.

 

I would also suggest to not run theory unless you need to do so. This approach, by its nature, is a major gamble. At the end of the round, the judge(s) must believe the negative approach created a situation where policy discussion became irrelevant at 1ar. If the judge (even those of us who vote on theory) doesn't believe you've demonstrated a real flaw in negative's structure, she won't vote on theory, and it's all you have left. Also, for obvious reasons, the weaker the neg theory responses are in block, the more successful this strategy is likely to be. Just make sure there are more indicators suggesting you should try this than suggest you shouldn't before going to it in 1ar. I've seen several rounds won this way which were near certain to go neg without doing it, but it's largely because the 1ar recognized the particulars of the neg positions which made the dispo/condo into a sure neg win on the policy flow. Usually this involves a situation where trying to turn one position (the conditional one) makes another stronger. This means the 1ar has to rely on pure defense, which almost always loses to a competent 2nr. A judge can be easily convinced that the neg is trying to set up a crazy double bind if that's exactly what they're doing. If all they did was say "dispo" when asked how they were running the CP, but didn't set up an impossible aff burden, you will be hard pressed to win on theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should also consider specific condo theory such as if they have multiple contradictory world, or there is a flow you could read offense on that could easily get kicked and have your offense c/a against your case. You could explain how a a conditional PIC is uniquely bad w/o winning that pics are bad because you no longer have the perm to check competition so you're forced to read offense. The more specific you can get to the round and the neg's specific 1NC strategy in terms of your abuse story the better. I also think a tricky thing a 2AC block chould include is aff choice. As in the Aff gets to choose what world the neg goes for. this solves back all their offense for critical thinking. Another interpretation is for every conditional world the neg gets the aff gets one intrinsic perm. Then the 2ar has options as to what counter interpretation they want to go for and makes the 2nr's job more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another interpretation is for every conditional world the neg gets the aff gets one intrinsic perm.

 

How do you justify this in the round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you justify this in the round?

 

Conditionality makes the neg a moving target, time and strat skew. Just like intrinsic perms and they solve back all of your education benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conditionality makes the neg a moving target, time and strat skew. Just like intrinsic perms and they solve back all of your education benefits.

 

Ah! I hadn't noticed the relation. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conditionality makes the neg a moving target, time and strat skew. Just like intrinsic perms and they solve back all of your education benefits.

 

Aff condo worse than neg condo?

 

The entire debate round is predicated off of the aff plan text, allowing them to add things to it enures the negative will never be able to win. The aff always gets solvency deficits and their affirmative to weigh against different negative positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

key to aff flex. the negative gets second speech and second to last speech, both frame the aff speeches. neg has infinite prep time and wins more debates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
key to aff flex.
So? Aff is entitled to flexibility because...?
neg has infinite prep time and wins more debates
Neg wouldn't have "infinite prep time" (as that term of art is used in debate) even if they only had once case area to work on. And anyone who thinks that Neg wins more often (or less often, for that matter) than Aff should be banished back to Stats 101...

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...