Jump to content
siegby

Persuasive T Arguments

Recommended Posts

Well thank you - the only round I had on T was against Japanese BMDs. We were the neg and lost on the interpretation debate - unfortunately, the judge seemed to think their counter-interpretation was a we meet. Our interpretation was that presence was boots on the ground, and they said "we meet because BMDs are a form of presence", however, that's more of a c/i than a we meet.

 

We did a good job on the standards debate - but seeing as they were older, more experienced, and had better evidence than us (the mistake was reading a lot of interpretations in the block like I did here - they all said presence is not airpower, presence is not arms sales, etc., and excluded the aff). They responded much like you - "their wave of new interpretations shows how confused their interpretation of the topic is and how arbitrary their restrictions are."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well thank you - the only round I had on T was against Japanese BMDs. We were the neg and lost on the interpretation debate - unfortunately, the judge seemed to think their counter-interpretation was a we meet. Our interpretation was that presence was boots on the ground, and they said "we meet because BMDs are a form of presence", however, that's more of a c/i than a we meet.

 

We did a good job on the standards debate - but seeing as they were older, more experienced, and had better evidence than us (the mistake was reading a lot of interpretations in the block like I did here - they all said presence is not airpower, presence is not arms sales, etc., and excluded the aff). They responded much like you - "their wave of new interpretations shows how confused their interpretation of the topic is and how arbitrary their restrictions are."

 

Now you've had two preview of some of the responses you will see. Block out your counterarguments and revise your original presentation of the T argument to counter them.

 

I'm a big fan of the strategy of using "we meet" responses made the by the aff on T as supporting disad links. A 2NR focused on the dilemma of either aff conceding T or conceding nice links to a disad is a good 2NR.

 

As a practical matter, it has been my experience that 1ARs tend to cover T too lightly--especially if T is the argument picked up by 1NR. They expect 2NR to drop whatever 1NR covered. So when 2NR cross-relates T (a traditional 1NR argument) with a disad or two (a traditional 2NR argument), 2AR has to put in a lot of work covering and explaining how Aff gets out of the dilemma.

 

We used this strategy a lot on the college hazardous waste topic. We got a lot of wins with it.

Edited by CaDan

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...