Jump to content
Rawrcat

Abuse Story With T

Recommended Posts

What's a good way when running T to point out in round abuse other than the general trick with running generic DA links so they call you out o it ?

 

Any good strategies when you know you'll go for T that best form an IR abuse chainV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything special here:

 

1) Use cross-ex to prove abuse

2) Don't spend a ton of time on the DA

3) Could be a case argument (the challenge here is if you are already spreading them out....they may not get to it till the end)

 

When I judge debates & coach my teams I generally don't use the traditional "blood on the flow" strategy if I'm uber pressed for time.

As a judge to me....its sufficient to get them to admit in cross-ex (usually the 1AC, because they are less likely to know how good your T argument is)

 

Also....thats in round abuse--to me.  They committed the violation--and cross ex is there to prove.  Or their silence on the question proves it--in the face of the neg pointing it out.

 

The real debate is if thats predictable ground, fair ground, and good ground.  Is the position core negative ground?

 

As a judge I also want to know if the affirmative still has decent predictable ground under this interpretation.

 

* As a side note, I think when you are talking about smart teams....and smart judges....you know what positions an aff is trying to avoid or spike out of.  

So all the jive in the world won't necessarily change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain how exactly you would use cross-x to prove abuse?

• Asking what your ground is in the debate.

• Does X argument link to their affirmative. (or if we ran X you would link out with....)

• What affs their interpretation justifies (actual & hypothetical). The later would mostly be with FX and extra.

 

99.9% of the time....the last one probably won't be effective.

 

Similar to #3, you could do something like....can you give me more examples of FX or Extra topical cases. Although, if they cite ones closer to the topic--it might not be quite as effective. A little easier way to frame that might be what cases does your interpretation legitimize? What else would fall under your interpretation of the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a huge pet peeve of mine, topicality isn't about abuse.  Topicality is a debate aout what the topic should be like (hence the name TOPICality).  Your focus on T shouldn't be about abuse, but what is best for the topic.  Even if there is no abuse in the rounds you should still be making two arguments:

  • Competing Interpretations is best
  • Potential abuse is a voter/Just because there is no abuse doesn't mean they're topical.

Seriously, just because a negative team has evidence or arguments against an untopical aff, doesn't mean it is topical or that the aff shouldn't lose on T.  It just means that the negative actually prepares for tournaments (crazy concept in some high school debates, I know). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a huge pet peeve of mine, topicality isn't about abuse.  Topicality is a debate aout what the topic should be like (hence the name TOPICality).  Your focus on T shouldn't be about abuse, but what is best for the topic.  Even if there is no abuse in the rounds you should still be making two arguments:

  • Competing Interpretations is best
  • Potential abuse is a voter/Just because there is no abuse doesn't mean they're topical.

Seriously, just because a negative team has evidence or arguments against an untopical aff, doesn't mean it is topical or that the aff shouldn't lose on T.  It just means that the negative actually prepares for tournaments (crazy concept in some high school debates, I know). 

NO. Jurisdictional voters are really stupid.  Everything must have an impact, whether it be education or nuclear war.  I agree that potential abuse should be more of a voter than it usually is, but you can't just say they're not topical under my interp, so vote against them.  Your standards are your voters in a way, prove why your def is the best for impacts like education/fairness.

  • Downvote 2

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...