Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
netz1

How "good" is T?

Recommended Posts

This is kind of a weird question, but I was wondering how "good" you think T is? By this I mean if the negative were good enough at T, could they go for it every round?

 

It seems to me that realistically, competing interpretations is a bad framework and potential for abuse isn't actually a voter... and if the aff spent enough time on these things, they could win them.

 

Maybe it would be best to ask it this way -- if everything from the 1NC to the 2AR was all topicality, do you think the negative would stand a chance (against a reasonable case?)

 

Or is the reason T is good because the 2AC usually undercovers it because T is run EVERY round so it's usually just a timesuck... then if the neg does like 8 minutes of T in the bloc, the aff is screwed because they are stuck with their 2AC arguments..

 

what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run T if a case is untopical, if they dont run a counter definition or we prove ours is better on the standards debate and that they dont meet it, we often go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there are teams that will go for T every round, personally i will run T pretty much evry round and if they dont answer it properly or if there truly not topical i'll go for it in the block. It's always a good idea to have it as a backdoor out of the round, unless the judge is opposed to it. In a round where T was the only issue the aff would get spread out by the theory the block ould put on T, although I know if I were judging you and all you ran was topicality unless the case is blatantly not topical, I would give the aff alot of weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

much like Steve-O said, T is a back door out of the round. As such I think the neg should always run at least one T a round and never more than 3. Have some basic ones that you can always run such as PKO= 1 of the 16 or PKO= all, etc. Whatever it is you should run it, then see how well the 2ac answers it. I suggest arguing one of them in the block, preferably in the 1nr. Then depnding on how the 1ar does either run T or kick it. I dont see a fundamental reason why the neg shouldn't go for T every round, but as I already said it depends on how well it is answered. I do think you always want to have T as an option in the end of the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what has been said here.. I run T every round.

 

I know that T is often most effective because the 2AC usualy reads a generic block, sometimes undercovering it.

 

My question is that if the negative really wanted to go for T, and the aff knew it, could the neg win?... if the aff answered it "perfectly", could it still be gone for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i hate T. its whiny and stupid. why waste your and everyone's time on it, when there are much better things to debate about. i certainly don't think its a good idea to do just T the entire debate. the poor judge and opposing team, it would get so boring. In order to do all T in all your speeches, you would pretty much have to do a T on every word in the resolution. if they're a good aff team they will have answers, and probably win, since t would be the only thing you ran in the round. if you're going to run T do it on one or two good words, and then run disats, etc. it works and looks better. that's my two cents! :P

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t is huge as a time suck-the aff. is required to answer, and if they don't or mishandle it, then it's game over from the 2nc/1nr, or should be anyway.

 

and, it's not hard to spend five minutes on t in the 2nr. if there aren't enough of their arguments on the t flow by then to argue for five minutes, you should just extend and explain and the round is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me and my partner almost always run T. However, we almost always use T as a time suck for the aff. To go for it, we look at how strong their We Meet is, and how good their counter-interp is. But no matter what, T is usually a great time tradeoff for the neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

topicality is great. it can be used as a timesuck, or a serious argument. a great thing about T is that it is very hard to get turned on it, unless you lose on an RVI (not very likely.) therefore, at worst you can just barely cover it in the block or even kick out of it, and at best you can win the round off it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like T, and I think it should be run every round, because as was said, you can throw a T shell out there in 30 seconds and if the aff undercovers it, you can blow it up in the bloc and win on it...

 

HOWEVER -- I don't think anyone really got to the question, except maybe downward747 who kinda did... theoretically, if the "two best debate teams" were debating, and the aff ran what was clearly a topical case, would T be a feasible option or does it rely on 2AC time constraints, unreasonable affs, or other mistakes in the 2AC?

 

Maybe this is a better way to put it... Some kritik debaters become so good at kritiks that they can take them for 8 minutes in the bloc and win on them all the time, even though the other team knows that he/she is a kritik hack. Is T something which can become that in-depth that someone could become "so good at T" that they could beat any aff on it, even if the aff is reasonable and answered it well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i dont think so. Against a un-t aff thats run by a good team (like Westminster's cyber peacekeeping) then yes, but in most cases no. T is something totally different. Its not the type of arg that can be used to dominate every single round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My strategy throughout a great deal of my high-school debate career was three off: a kritik that would link if the aff was topical under the T violation, the t-violation, and some sort of other theory argument like ASPEC of Vagueness

 

The 2nc would usually be the kritik and the 1nr was usually T or theopry, depending on which argument was the strongest comming into the block.

 

Even though I consider myself stonger on the K debate, the theory/T debates were usually undercovered and we would end up winning most of our rounds on that side of the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while I concede that T and Theory are valid ways to win rounds and important to debate, they make for such boring rounds. T/Theory rounds are unbareable, even when you're in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
while I concede that T and Theory are valid ways to win rounds and important to debate, they make for such boring rounds. T/Theory rounds are unbareable, even when you're in it.

 

I disagree, theory/T debates are some of the most intense and original debates I've been apart of. They're super fast, original, and the arguments that come from them govern what debate is and what debate becomes. Debate theory sets the framework for everything about the activity. Plus, its a part of the debate where the argument really flows to the better debater, because its not about what you have, or how prepped you are, its about the arguments you make, and how well you argue them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an actual winner in compedative rounds, I don't think T is very good. Because T is so overused, most judges (at least around here) will side aff if the T debate is close.

 

The point in T, in my opinion, is 2 fold. The first thing it does is waste aff time. (especially if you run defs that they don't have counter-defs for like "A" or run T on 2 words inconjunction) The other good thing about it is that it gives the neg some stable, common arguments. In every round, the neg can run either establish=create or establish=modify, so you'll be able to become familiar with those arguments and know how to work them accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T and theory debates actualy require original thinking at least when your not reading straight from blocks, they can actuoally be interesting when there not read straight from those blocks and there is actual clash. Instead of reading preprepared blocks which clash about as muich as to ships passing on a foggy night. instead of just reading blocks, actually answer their arguments, which requires a great deal of thought. However in most cases you guys are right that T and theory debates are boring, but they dont have to be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree, theory/T debates are some of the most intense and original debates I've been apart of. They're super fast, original, and the arguments that come from them govern what debate is and what debate becomes. Debate theory sets the framework for everything about the activity. Plus, its a part of the debate where the argument really flows to the better debater, because its not about what you have, or how prepped you are, its about the arguments you make, and how well you argue them.

qfa. if someone is an awesome theory debater, then they're pretty much guaranteed to be an all around excellent debater. if you can win voters in a theory debate, it can be applied/won on every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually run T regardless if the other team is topical or not. Just as a time suck in the 1NC mostly. If they actually are non-topical, then thats great, but, if they undercover it, all the better I guess.

 

But, no, i dont think that you could win a round soley on T, if the case is "reasonalbe." There should be no way in hell that a judge would vote down the aff, and they SHOULD win on the comparative advantage, I would suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run 2 t's every round if they use more than two minutes answering them, the judge will probably by the shit they are sayying and you should drop it in the block. This is good because it is a small time sux and they under cover every thing else. If they spend less than on minute on both of them, pick the one that was covered the least, or doesnt have a wm or ci, and blow the standards and the vi in the 1nr for five mnutes. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you weren a master of t, you could probably win just about every round that the opponents wern't PERFECTLY topical, and a lot of the rest. T is a priori, so it is great to go for, especially if you're really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I usually run T regardless if the other team is topical or not. Just as a time suck in the 1NC mostly. If they actually are non-topical, then thats great, but, if they undercover it, all the better I guess.

 

But, no, i dont think that you could win a round soley on T, if the case is "reasonalbe." There should be no way in hell that a judge would vote down the aff, and they SHOULD win on the comparative advantage, I would suppose.

 

It can go either way... a great T for this year was simply that of peacekeeping vs. peacebuilding/peacemaking, strictly because a lot of teams spent 1:00 + on analysis on the violation alone, and that's excluding standards dabait as well. However, T as a timesuck isn't that effective if your opponents are reasonably good. Also, even if a case is reasonable, T can very easily be voted for if the aff. team sucks... period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonability blows...requires too much intervention to be effective. And while the aff may think they are reasonably topical, we think they are REASONABLY untopical. *Insert rest of reasonability bad block*

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...