Jump to content
jrose12

Going for T in 2NR

Recommended Posts

I've been instructed that if I am to go for topicality in the 2NR, I should only go for T. I guess I understand the rationale behind it, but how do you spend 5 minutes exclusively on T.

 

Anyone have links to good T debates I could watch or explain what should go in a Topicality 2NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, you should begin your 2NR with kicking out all the things you're not going for - basically "housekeeping" theory issues, turns on disads, etc.

 

Winners win totes makes them topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I effectively go for T (my favorite argument):

 

1) You should focus the entire speech on T except for the following:

- any other theory arguments in the round

- any other arguments in the round that have any bearing on your topicality violation (but if it's a good violation, it should be insulated from the rest of the round)

- any discursive / out of round / kritik implications in the round

2) You need a clear over view. My over views are always long, full paragraphs that take at least a minute to present. Tell the story of the round, why the affirmative is clearly untopical, and why that matters. Explain why the affirmative misunderstands your violation or has other misconceptions, and why your argument is right and consistent. Explain any abuse (they must be abusive, I had to go for T!... ;))

 

3) On the line by line, avoid extending a million blips, but instead reference your over view (but don't just say it's answered in the overview!) and extend the key arguments you outline in the over view - if the argument is important on the line by line, it should be well explained in the over view.

 

4) If you still have too much time, then you either should have gone slower in your 2NR (which is fine!), or you should do a short underview that presents the key arguments of the debate in a slightly blippy form.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have more than warranted analytics to go for T; you should quantify abuse/limits through cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and if you hit a K aff that Ks Topicality, try to make the argument that they have to win T to be able to access the K of T. And K of T is usually stupid (example T is genocide judge!), but some K of T can be a little more legitimate.

 

For example with Neoliberal PMC aff that Gonzaga put out, the K of T argued that the aff's interp destroys the binary between public/private and then that is good. This K of T is more a reason to prefer than saying you should lose for reading T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have a really good 2NR T overview they could email me (jacob.rose12@yahoo.com)? If it's from a different topic, that's fine. I just want to see what a good O/V looks like.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No bruh you need to make sure you answer link turns man - I mean, T is evaluated before other issues, but it just seems...wrong...to leave a turn unanswered.

 

Not really. What are they gonna do with those turns? "They concede the link turn, that means we get a new global warming scenario which outweighs fairness and education"? They can have as many impact scenarios as they want but if their case is not topical it doesn't matter because it's not within the jurisdiction of the judge, as an arbiter of the resolution, to evaluate cases that don't uphold the resolution.

 

Anyways, to answer the original question, what you want to do is have a short overview at the top of the 2NR explaining exactly what your interpretation is and what kind of a world of debate your interpretation provides, how they violate your interpretation, and why your world of debate is good/better than the one they provide. Remember - even if your world sucks, if you're going for T in the 2NR the judge has to pick between either your interpretation or theirs - all you have to prove is that their interpretation is worse. They won't extend too much in the 1AR (a good T 1AR is probably about 40 seconds to a minute), so you'll want to go pretty line-by-line heavy in the 2NR. You'll be able to answer everything they said and put multiple answers on each point. Also make sure you extend your 2NC answers to answer their points; it'll be helpful.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your argument - it just feels satisfying to make sure I tie up lose ends before talking about T. It honestly doesn't take more than 15 seconds.

You can't actually beat back the 1ar's substance in 15 seconds. So that means you're just saying 'they say turn, but T comes first.' This is a waste of 15 seconds - either the judge understands this without being reminded, or you need to actually make arguments instead of reminders, which takes longer. Plus you should be making this arg on the T flow, when you frame as a gateway issue and/or explain how horribly abusive they were, so it's redundant to put it on the substantive flows.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reputation_pos.gif

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefrozenone viewpost.gif

I understand your argument - it just feels satisfying to make sure I tie up lose ends before talking about T. It honestly doesn't take more than 15 seconds.

 

You can't actually beat back the 1ar's substance in 15 seconds.

 

1) Answering independent voting issues and decision rules

2) Answering theory (like your cp is illegit) and framework arguments

 

You also want to highlight the "blood on the flow"--the exact place the abuse happens so the 2ar can't say "no abuse."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also want to highlight the "blood on the flow"--the exact place the abuse happens so the 2ar can't say "no abuse."

That phrase is awesome. I'm definitely going to use that phrase in round.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Identify & flag their offense.

 

Isolate disadvantages to their interpretation (this obviously should have been done in the block).

 

2. Answer their defense.

 

3. T is a voter.

 

Covering your tail:

 

1. Make sure there is no theory elsewhere on the flow which can hurt you (particularly on the counter plan or the critique).

2. "Protect me...no new 2ar arguments. Don't punish me because they undercovered in 1ar on topicality. Remember: you can't vote on arguments that aren't direct extensions from the 1ar"

3. They will say X....our argument already answers that back....heres how (thats too verboses...but gives you an idea).

 

Isolate the abuse (aka "the blood on the flow" used earlier).

Go to their answer on the flow or cross examination which isolates the problem (ie why them being topical skewed the round or abused you). For instance they say "but we're looking at earth...not into space so we don't link to space debris."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the subject of other options you had going in- disads, kritiks, whatever- use the 1ar coverage to your advantage. so when they say "no link, what the hell are you talking about", you say "exactly. and that's why you're untopical. and that's bad, as i'll explain for the next 4:45".

 

it gives a lot more credence to your argument if you use what you have as offense, and becomes wholly devastating to the 2ar. oh, and it makes you seem like the strategic mastermind. which probably helps on speaker points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the subject of other options you had going in- disads, kritiks, whatever- use the 1ar coverage to your advantage. so when they say "no link, what the hell are you talking about", you say "exactly. and that's why you're untopical. and that's bad, as i'll explain for the next 4:45".

 

it gives a lot more credence to your argument if you use what you have as offense, and becomes wholly devastating to the 2ar. oh, and it makes you seem like the strategic mastermind. which probably helps on speaker points.

I'm not certain that this is what you're advocating, but I've always found the read-a-DA-that-doesn't-link-in-order-to-win-abuse-claims-on-T strategy very annoying. No matter what case the affirmative reads, there's obviously going to be a DA that doesn't link. The negative is not entitled to free DA links for every DA that could possibly apply to the topic, pretending that they've got this entitlement is silly, not strategic.

 

I mean, the strategy works often, but it really shouldn't if judges and 1ARs are being intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain that this is what you're advocating, but I've always found the read-a-DA-that-doesn't-link-in-order-to-win-abuse-claims-on-T strategy very annoying. No matter what case the affirmative reads, there's obviously going to be a DA that doesn't link. The negative is not entitled to free DA links for every DA that could possibly apply to the topic, pretending that they've got this entitlement is silly, not strategic.

 

I mean, the strategy works often, but it really shouldn't if judges and 1ARs are being intelligent.

 

I think it's more along the lines of read a DA that links to the case, because the affirmative will usually read a no link to it. I certainly do this all the time when I'm aff. And then you contest it through the block and then in the 2nr you just kick the DA because there's no link and talk about how it proves that they're untopical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends....if you launch one satellite and the DA is generic like "Space Coop now...independent missions kill coop...that's bad." If the 2AC is like "no link - we're one satellite" then the substantial violation might seem a little better (or the other violation if you can prove that you get generics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more along the lines of read a DA that links to the case, because the affirmative will usually read a no link to it. I certainly do this all the time when I'm aff. And then you contest it through the block and then in the 2nr you just kick the DA because there's no link and talk about how it proves that they're untopical.

No. Whether or not the affirmative links to one specific DA is irrelevant to the topicality debate unless the negative is entitled to every DA link conceivable. Your clarification that this is "a DA that links to the case" is untrue in the context of the conceded no link argument, and is somewhat paradoxical.

 

Your interpretation would allow the negative to claim that substantial means without material qualification and to read a DA against a different plan and win because the no-link proves no in-round abuse. This interpretation generates perverse incentives for the affirmative to concede nonsensical link arguments out of fear of topicality. It also generates reasons for the negative to intentionally read arguments that don't clash with the affirmative advocacy in order to bolster their strength on the topicality debate.

 

It depends....if you launch one satellite and the DA is generic like "Space Coop now...independent missions kill coop...that's bad." If the 2AC is like "no link - we're one satellite" then the substantial violation might seem a little better (or the other violation if you can prove that you get generics).

I don't think you can draw a meaningful distinction between this and other DAs that the affirmative could hypothetically not link to. Actually, no, I suppose you could, but I think that it's because the affirmative wouldn't link to any DA with only one satellite, not because they wouldn't link to any specific DA. So the no-link is at best an illustration of an argument, but doesn't suffice to prove anything on its own. It shouldn't impact the topicality debate very much at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. I just like to get around the "we don't have to show abuse" by the saying it's a voting issue because of jurisdiction and then explaining that briefly in the 1NC and then a lot more in the block. If the judge is a well, a judge, he does not have the right to vote for arguments outside of his jurisdiction. So then it's just winning the T violation from there. It's worked pretty well for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. I just like to get around the "we don't have to show abuse" by the saying it's a voting issue because of jurisdiction and then explaining that briefly in the 1NC and then a lot more in the block. If the judge is a well, a judge, he does not have the right to vote for arguments outside of his jurisdiction. So then it's just winning the T violation from there. It's worked pretty well for me.

 

Bleh, I dislike jurisdiction, but it can win rounds. I think it's a bit risky doing that. At the very least, you should read potential abuse is a voter and give some mock abuse stories that are possible with this aff's non-topicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. I just like to get around the "we don't have to show abuse" by the saying it's a voting issue because of jurisdiction and then explaining that briefly in the 1NC and then a lot more in the block. If the judge is a well, a judge, he does not have the right to vote for arguments outside of his jurisdiction. So then it's just winning the T violation from there. It's worked pretty well for me.

 

You just need to win competing interpretations to win that you dont have to show abuse. Competing interpretations compares the world of your interp versus the world of their interp.

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...