Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MisterTDebater

Half DAs?

Recommended Posts

If negative teams can read additional impacts in the block, then is it abusive / advisable to read part of your DAs in the 1NC and then develop them in the block? Ie.

1NC

UQ- Spending Low.

Link- Plan costs Money

2NC

I/L - Collapses economy

Impact - Nuke War

 

This way you get more time in the 1NC, but im suspicious about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If negative teams can read additional impacts in the block, then is it abusive / advisable to read part of your DAs in the 1NC and then develop them in the block? Ie.

1NC

UQ- Spending Low.

Link- Plan costs Money

2NC

I/L - Collapses economy

Impact - Nuke War

 

This way you get more time in the 1NC, but im suspicious about it.

 

I'd say its not abusive, but not really advisable either. You have a trade-off in your speeches. Either you waste your 1nc time or your 2nc time, so there is probably no net benefit, especially when you make it easier for the other team to answer your d/a's.I would just stick to cross-applying things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say its not abusive, but not really advisable either. You have a trade-off in your speeches. Either you waste your 1nc time or your 2nc time, so there is probably no net benefit, especially when you make it easier for the other team to answer your d/a's.I would just stick to cross-applying things.

This is the opposite of correct. You can read twice as many DAs and then just not read the other half of any of the DAs that the affirmative has good answers to, thus saving you time. You can also be sneaky about your internal links/impacts so that by conceding the affirmative's turns you can functionally trick them into turning their own case. It's probably abusive because of those things. The OP is smart for thinking of it, but most judges probably won't like this setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents:

 

As of the 1nc, you aren't even reading arguments. The other team is going to be baffled at what you're doing and the judge is going to be like "look at these assclowns, don't even know how to read a DA."

 

After the 2nc, most judges will just be looking for a reason to vote you down because a) you're a total dick for doing that, b ) what you're doing isn't actually debate, it's a trick to avoid having to debate, and c) if you're resorting to things like that, you probably aren't the better team anyway.

 

Learn how to defend arguments rather than try and hide them. This idea is on the same level as that stupid Hidden Voter CP Hadoken used to mention in as many threads as possible

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This idea is on the same level as that stupid Hidden Voter CP Hadoken used to mention in as many threads as possible

Wait. Has Red Spy finally abandoned the site?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a terrible, awful idea. There is no impact to "the plan spends money" so the 2A doesn't even have to go to that sheet of paper. You have not entered a complete argument into the debate and will be a speech behind because of that. You are now incapable of extending dropped warrants from your 1NC internal link/impact to turn the case in the block, and your impact work will be shoddy and underdeveloped. At the very very least, you have opened the door for new 1AR impact defense and impact turns, both of which you are incapable of effectively covering in the 2NR (already the most time-pressured speech in the debate). I would say this is highly inadvisable.

 

Judges don't want "tricks", they want well-warranted and well-developed debates.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just link turn all of your DA's, which means that it would be a bitch in the block to try to answer everything, since you can't just kick any of them.

 

Although I suppose if you hadn't read an impact to a DA as of the 1NC you could just concede the link turn and say there is no impact. But, as Rawrcat says, the judge hates you with a passion after you do that in the 1NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AC - All impact turns. Reading a DA without an impact is just begging for that.

 

 

THIS

 

You are handing over additional case advantages if the 2AC just says "they didn't read an impact, here's an impact that helps the Aff, Thanks for the advantage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AC - All impact turns. Reading a DA without an impact is just begging for that.

I don't think so. The negative could choose unusual DAs which the affirmative wouldn't have internal link evidence about or ones where the internal link debate could go either way. The negative would have immense flexibility when responding to the attempted impact turn as well. If the DA was chosen well this would be an extremely hard strategy to answer without using theoretical arguments.

 

That is a terrible, awful idea. There is no impact to "the plan spends money" so the 2A doesn't even have to go to that sheet of paper. You have not entered a complete argument into the debate and will be a speech behind because of that. You are now incapable of extending dropped warrants from your 1NC internal link/impact to turn the case in the block, and your impact work will be shoddy and underdeveloped.

I disagree with these arguments. If the 2A chose to neglect the "plan spends money argument" the negative would start the block half an argument ahead in the debate instead of one argument behind. While they couldn't extend dropped warrants to turn the case, they could easily make new arguments to do so. The impact work wouldn't be underdeveloped, they'd have 13 minutes to read impact arguments.

 

The 1AR functions by strategically extending 2AC arguments, not by making entirely new ones. Most 1As probably couldn't handle this strategy because it would catch them by surprise and force much quicker thinking then they usually need to do. Making entirely new arguments takes much more time than extending old arguments, which means this strategy would also magnify the time advantages of the block.

 

At the very very least, you have opened the door for new 1AR impact defense and impact turns, both of which you are incapable of effectively covering in the 2NR (already the most time-pressured speech in the debate). I would say this is highly inadvisable.

I think this is mostly true. Strategic DA choice would somewhat mitigate this, but only by a very small amount. However, I wonder if interjecting a CP with a different net benefit into this debate would allow for strategic advantages via this strategy. I haven't thought this part through but it seems like it might work.

 

Obviously this argument is theoretically bankrupt and judges will hate it, so I'm not advocating reading it. I'm just using it as a thought experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. The negative could choose unusual DAs which the affirmative wouldn't have internal link evidence about or ones where the internal link debate could go either way. The negative would have immense flexibility when responding to the attempted impact turn as well. If the DA was chosen well this would be an extremely hard strategy to answer without using theoretical arguments.

 

 

 

I disagree with these arguments. If the 2A chose to neglect the "plan spends money argument" the negative would start the block half an argument ahead in the debate instead of one argument behind. While they couldn't extend dropped warrants to turn the case, they could easily make new arguments to do so. The impact work wouldn't be underdeveloped, they'd have 13 minutes to read impact arguments.

 

The 1AR functions by strategically extending 2AC arguments, not by making entirely new ones. Most 1As probably couldn't handle this strategy because it would catch them by surprise and force much quicker thinking then they usually need to do. Making entirely new arguments takes much more time than extending old arguments, which means this strategy would also magnify the time advantages of the block.

 

 

 

 

 

No. How does the negative have "immense flexibility" to responed to the impact turn? There are impact turns to EVERY GOOD IMPACT, and a DA that is "chosen well" does not help - any decent aff team is usually prepared for most DAs to their aff - there is no way to predict which DA's they have not prepared. This argument assumes that you are facing an inept or incompetent team - the aff can get away with far fewer new answers per DA in the 1ar than is normally acceptable because the negative has no longer has the block to answer affirmative arguments. There is a reason why most at: blocks are relatively long and take a while to read in the block - reading these and competentely answering even a small number of aff arguments from the 1ar is nigh impossible - it is simply not possible to cover correctly.

 

1a's can read the first 3 points of 2ac blocks. Next. Anyone can read impact turns in the 1ar - any new block is up for grabs. It would be nigh impossible to give a 2nr on a hypothetical spending DA when the 1ar reads de-dev for 5 minutes in the 1ar. The strength of the block is in its direction - it can answer arguments that have already been read. Reading new I/L's and impacts in the block is like using a shotgun to kill a fly - it is impossible to predict what answers will be in the 1ar so the vast majority of evidence read will be wasted.

 

EDIT: fixed formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. How does the negative have "immense flexibility" to responed to the impact turn? There are impact turns to EVERY GOOD IMPACT, and a DA that is "chosen well" does not help - any decent aff team is usually prepared for most DAs to their aff - there is no way to predict which DA's they have not prepared.

The negative could choose DAs with have a very limited range of potential affirmative responses in order to force the affirmative to debate on their terms. There are not good impact turns to every good impact, and that is crucial. For example, anything with a proliferation impact would be almost impossible to competently impact turn in the 1AR and the 2NR would only need one card about how people aren't rational and deterrence fails in order to beat the impact turns. There are no other even remotely good turns to proliferation. Any DA with a proliferation impact would be extremely useful in this situation. I'm sure that there are similar DA impacts available on this year's topic.

 

This argument assumes that you are facing an inept or incompetent team - the aff can get away with far fewer new answers per DA in the 1ar than is normally acceptable because the negative has no longer has the block to answer affirmative arguments.

The affirmative can't win with far fewer answers per DA than normally acceptable regardless of the location of the block. To win the DA the affirmative either needs to win the link and uniqueness debate or impact turn. This strategy would allow the negative to concede the argument if the 2AC has strong arguments on the link and uniqueness debate (the negative could also potentially read a "backwards" version of the argument and thus turn the link turn, as it were). This means that if the negative's chosen a DA with a narrow range of impact turns and developed efficient blocks in advance they'd be ahead on the debate.

 

The 1AR can't be a miniaturized version of the 2AC and win easily.

 

This is because:

1. 1As aren't used to having to do the type of work the 2As do. 1As practice extending 2A arguments, not making them. In fact, even 2As aren't used to doing the type of works that 2As do within the 1AR. That might sound like a minor issue at first, but if you think about it it's really quite important. Most 2AC blocks probably aren't reducible to a two or three small arguments, they're generally or at least frequently defenses of an overarching theory, such as deterrence.

2. 1As aren't used to operating within a newly shifted strategic landscape of the debate, generally they're planning the 1AR from the moment after the 1NC ends. This would prevent them from doing so, and forcing your opponent to think on their feet and to adapt to a new situation is a good strategic move.

3. There's a big difference between extending a conceded argument which is then blown up into a huge issue within the 1AR and making an entirely new argument without knowing how the negative will respond. The only reason that the 1AR survives at all currently is by extending arguments based on whatever the negative failed to cover well in the block, the 1AR is about exploiting weaknesses in the AT:2AC arguments of the negative. This strategy would take away the only reason that the affirmative ever wins now.

 

There is a reason why most at: blocks are relatively long and take a while to read in the block - reading these and competentely answering even a small number of aff arguments from the 1ar is nigh impossible - it is simply not possible to cover correctly.

The only reason that this is so is because the 1AR extends the 2AC arguments which the negative block neglected the most. By shifting the debate over one speech the negative would prevent the 1AR from knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the negative's AT:2AC arguments which would in turn prevent the 1AR from exploiting the flaws in the negative's AT arguments, which is the only way that 1ARs ever survive the onslaught of the block (in good debates).

 

1a's can read the first 3 points of 2ac blocks. Next. Anyone can read impact turns in the 1ar - any new block is up for grabs. It would be nigh impossible to give a 2nr on a hypothetical spending DA when the 1ar reads de-dev for 5 minutes in the 1ar.

Strategic DA choice solves this. The proliferation impact is completely different from the economy impact because there's an extremely limited number of reasons that proliferation is good or bad whereas there are dozens of reasons that economic growth is good or bad. Narrowing the debate would allow the negative to avoid these types of problems and would make this strategy work well.

 

The strength of the block is in its direction - it can answer arguments that have already been read. Reading new I/L's and impacts in the block is like using a shotgun to kill a fly - it is impossible to predict what answers will be in the 1ar so the vast majority of evidence read will be wasted.

You've got it backwards. The 1AR survives because it can exploit the flaws in the Block's responses to the 2AC. This strategy would prevent the 1AR from exploiting those flaws because the flaws wouldn't yet be apparent. That would make the 1AR impossible because they'd have to articulate a broad enough range of positions that the 2AR could strategically extend only certain arguments, or else the negative would just respond to the affirmative points and they'd win because they'd have done 8 minutes more initial work on the crucial arguments. Moreover, the flexibility allowed by reading the internal link and impact after the 2AC, as well as the inherent flexibility afforded by the ability to choose which DA to read, would allow the negative to choose positions that don't have a broad range of answers and that can thus be easily defended by the 2NR.

 

This strategy would destroy the ability of the affirmative to predict the future of the debate and to exploit the flaws of the block. There is no other mechanism for the 1AR to withstand thirteen minutes of negative arguments. That means this strategy would frequently result in negative victory if accompanied by a strategically chosen DA (assuming theoretical arguments weren't made in the debate). That's why I think this strategy is abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The negative could choose DAs with have a very limited range of potential affirmative responses in order to force the affirmative to debate on their terms. There are not good impact turns to every good impact, and that is crucial. For example, anything with a proliferation impact would be almost impossible to competently impact turn in the 1AR and the 2NR would only need one card about how people aren't rational and deterrence fails in order to beat the impact turns. There are no other even remotely good turns to proliferation. Any DA with a proliferation impact would be extremely useful in this situation. I'm sure that there are similar DA impacts available on this year's topic.

 

Prolf. No good impact turns? Since when have you debated - last time I checked most teams on the national circuit have a sweet prolif good file. Actors not rational and deterrence fails? Would these cards be read in the block?

If so, the 1ar could load up on these issues and win them *very* convincingly -

If not, the 2nr would have to read these cards and not have time to develop arguments effectively. This would enable the 2ar to add alot of effective explanation where the 2nr cannot do so.

 

I say with this all seriousness - 95% of impacts are impact turnable with good impact turns. If you are picking an impact that is not impact turnable or one that is readily answerable, chances are it won't O/W the aff. If you can't O/W the aff you can't O/W the aff. That sounds very basic but un-impact turnable impacts are usually susceptible to this phenomenon.

 

 

The affirmative can't win with far fewer answers per DA than normally acceptable regardless of the location of the block. To win the DA the affirmative either needs to win the link and uniqueness debate or impact turn. This strategy would allow the negative to concede the argument if the 2AC has strong arguments on the link and uniqueness debate (the negative could also potentially read a "backwards" version of the argument and thus turn the link turn, as it were). This means that if the negative's chosen a DA with a narrow range of impact turns and developed efficient blocks in advance they'd be ahead on the debate.

 

"Ahead on the debate"? - the aff hasn't read their answers yet - the 2n has NO CLUE what answers could be read. Is the block supposed to read their 2nc block to EVERY anticipatable 2ac answer? I doubt that is possible. This also undermines the time trade off. Reading a link without an impact means the aff can impact turn any part of that in the 2ac AND impact turn anything new in the 1ar.

 

The 1AR can't be a miniaturized version of the 2AC and win easily.

 

This is because:

1. 1As aren't used to having to do the type of work the 2As do. 1As practice extending 2A arguments, not making them. In fact, even 2As aren't used to doing the type of works that 2As do within the 1AR. That might sound like a minor issue at first, but if you think about it it's really quite important. Most 2AC blocks probably aren't reducible to a two or three small arguments, they're generally or at least frequently defenses of an overarching theory, such as deterrence.

 

1ars can read. Pretty fast, usually. They can also debate. They can obviously to adapt a little bit and read a little more. If they have 5 minutes to impact turn new impacts, it will be the easiest 1ar to give in the history of debate. Maybe thats a bit of exaggeration but the principle holds up.

 

2. 1As aren't used to operating within a newly shifted strategic landscape of the debate, generally they're planning the 1AR from the moment after the 1NC ends. This would prevent them from doing so, and forcing your opponent to think on their feet and to adapt to a new situation is a good strategic move.

 

1as can read. Next.

 

3. There's a big difference between extending a conceded argument which is then blown up into a huge issue within the 1AR and making an entirely new argument without knowing how the negative will respond. The only reason that the 1AR survives at all currently is by extending arguments based on whatever the negative failed to cover well in the block, the 1AR is about exploiting weaknesses in the AT:2AC arguments of the negative. This strategy would take away the only reason that the affirmative ever wins now.

 

Have you ever been in a debate where the 1ar reads impact turns to a new block impact? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to give a 2nr on these issues? New arguments *destroy* the block's time advantage. And no, 1ars are not only good at extending arguments. They usually have a brain, and can use it too.

 

 

The only reason that this is so is because the 1AR extends the 2AC arguments which the negative block neglected the most. By shifting the debate over one speech the negative would prevent the 1AR from knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the negative's AT:2AC arguments which would in turn prevent the 1AR from exploiting the flaws in the negative's AT arguments, which is the only way that 1ARs ever survive the onslaught of the block (in good debates).

 

This doesn't assume new 1ar impact turns, or even answers. There is a reason why top college debaters all read about 5 newish arguments in the 1ar on a variety of flows - because it makes the 2nr much more difficult.

 

Strategic DA choice solves this. The proliferation impact is completely different from the economy impact because there's an extremely limited number of reasons that proliferation is good or bad whereas there are dozens of reasons that economic growth is good or bad. Narrowing the debate would allow the negative to avoid these types of problems and would make this strategy work well.

 

Proliferation is very impact turnable.

 

Here is a few other common impacts that also have sweet impact turns:

1. Hegemony - counterbalancing, terrorism, prolif, asia war, pre-emption, a variety of things

2. Terrorism - NMD good, east asia troop presence, economy, middle eastern stability

3. Econ - De-dev - nuff said

4. Prolif - deterrence good args (Hooch's A team had success with this last year),

--NK Prolif - Korean stability, Chinese-Korean Relations

--Iran Prolif - Middle Eastern stability, Chinese energy security (St. Marks BM had fantastic success with this last year)

5. Warming - CO2 ag, Ice Age, SO2 Good (GBS HJ has picked up 4 rounds on CO2 ag this year)

6. Biodiversity - simplicity good (GBN PP had success with this last year)

7. China war - nanotech, prolif, naval power, military modernization (among others)

8. Middle Eastern instability - Chinese oil security, terrorism, chechnyan instability

 

This is just off the top of my head - MOST GOOD IMPACT HAVE GOOD IMPACT TURNS.

 

 

 

You've got it backwards. The 1AR survives because it can exploit the flaws in the Block's responses to the 2AC. This strategy would prevent the 1AR from exploiting those flaws because the flaws wouldn't yet be apparent. That would make the 1AR impossible because they'd have to articulate a broad enough range of positions that the 2AR could strategically extend only certain arguments, or else the negative would just respond to the affirmative points and they'd win because they'd have done 8 minutes more initial work on the crucial arguments. Moreover, the flexibility allowed by reading the internal link and impact after the 2AC, as well as the inherent flexibility afforded by the ability to choose which DA to read, would allow the negative to choose positions that don't have a broad range of answers and that can thus be easily defended by the 2NR.

 

This strategy would destroy the ability of the affirmative to predict the future of the debate and to exploit the flaws of the block. There is no other mechanism for the 1AR to withstand thirteen minutes of negative arguments. That means this strategy would frequently result in negative victory if accompanied by a strategically chosen DA (assuming theoretical arguments weren't made in the debate). That's why I think this strategy is abusive.

 

You are right - it prevents the aff from exploiting a 13 minute speech. However, it allows the aff to exploit mistakes in a much shorter, much more difficult AND the negative won't even have a chance to recover from mistakes. Yes, this *CAN BE* an effective strategy. However, it has serious downsides that a good team can exploit.

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...