Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Woofwoof

T Help

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

I frequently run topicalities and enojoy it too. The judges tell me that I can win the t argument all the time if I answer their claim that you had specific links to disads which means you lose no ground. I tried to outweigh with limits impact. It might be either

 

A) I am not articulating enough the impacts of limits

B) there are other arguments i should make

 

Any ideas?????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education: Allowing the neg to overlimit the topic means we have to run awful generic affs like Mars or Constellation, which means that we debate the SAME thing every time and never learn anything.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education: Allowing the neg to overlimit the topic means we have to run awful generic affs like Mars or Constellation, which means that we debate the SAME thing every time and never learn anything.

 

This doesn't apply. He wants to argue for strict limits, not against them. He also wants help with ground arguments.

 

I think ground arguments are usually stupid and whiny, so I don't know how to help the OP. But what you did isn't it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

I frequently run topicalities and enojoy it too. The judges tell me that I can win the t argument all the time if I answer their claim that you had specific links to disads which means you lose no ground. I tried to outweigh with limits impact. It might be either

 

A) I am not articulating enough the impacts of limits

B) there are other arguments i should make

 

Any ideas?????????

I dont know that much about T so I might not be that helpful but-You dont have to prove actual in round abuse to generate offense-it's the ideas they promote that generate offense for the claim of potential abuse-e.g. "Just because we had specific links to your specific aff in this specific debate doesnt mean all affs under your interp give fair ground-this is where we generate offense-evaluate competing interpretations through an overall lens not through a specific example" That might have been poorly worded but you get the gist of it-you should always be making the argument "potential abuse is a voter" when debating something like T-under a fw like evaluate competing interpretations(the general norm for a T debate, as far as I know)-at the sametime, you should still try to o/w with limits, its always nice to have more offense

  • Upvote 1

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...