Jump to content
sikcool

Who would you vote for

Recommended Posts

In a particular round the negative read 5 off, one of those offs being a k. The 2AC addressed everything but forgot the K. Assuming neg extends the K arguments all the way through and explains it, does that mean they automatically win despite any attempt made by the 1AR and 2AR to attack it since it would be considered new arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1AR can justify some arguments, but is still in a really really bad position because any solvency deficits to the alternative would be completely new, as would any impact defense.

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it depends on how strong the link is. if the aff clearly doesn't link to a K (imperialism against and anti-imperialism aff, and the link is generic throughout the round) then probably not but If the aff links to the K well enough for the impacts to happen and it's explained in the round well enough than the next question would be impacts. does the case out weigh the K or is the K turning the case. It's really dependent on how well the K is explained in the 2NR. but I wouldn't say the round is over once a team drops a K, it's not like T (although I've seen a team win after dropping T).

Edited by glg1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff could win if the neg dosn't win the "Are new arguments allowed debate. Also if they aff can cross apply from the other flows and make the story work the neg can lose. Really the neg wins unless they get cocky and think the debates over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the 2AR go for condo? ;)

 

 

The only legitimate arguments that I think the 1AR could make would be case outweighs and impact calc type arguments (Case turns K impacts, K can't solve the aff's extinction scenario, etc...). That being said, if the K doesn't link to the aff, then I think a no link argument is justified. Even if the aff dropped the K, it's still the negs burden of proof to win the link, impact, and alt solvency. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've won rounds where we completely dropped something. (Only happened twice ofcourse)

 

It really just depends on how the aff plays their cards. In my rounds, I had enough going for me in the rest of the debate that I could cross-apply stuff later on. It's not really a new argument, just a new application of that argument. For example, my partner dropped Asia Pivot in the 1AR, but I was able to cross-apply a "controlling impact" that was extended on case to take out any risk of the disad.

 

It should also be noted that the dropped offcase has to somehow outweigh / turn the case. You don't just automatically win if they drop the "hand soap is bad" Kritik

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually had a round recently where a team almost beat us after dropping T:

 

they end up dropping Extra T in the 1AR, but they have a critical aff with a role of the ballot. this is extended but no argument saying ROB trumps T is made in the debate. My 2NR does a small preemption of this in the overview but highly undercovers it. They end up trying to show that the ROB comes before T, but we end up winning a 2-1 decision.

 

This is just an example of how a team can drop something and still pick up a ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided there was no framework argument in the 1NC...

no all our other off case went along with there framework/ROB. It seemed to be a policy aff with critical advantages it's just there plan text fiated solvency essentially by "circumventing a singular class currency" witch is what the T was about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've won rounds where we completely dropped something. (Only happened twice ofcourse)

 

It really just depends on how the aff plays their cards. In my rounds, I had enough going for me in the rest of the debate that I could cross-apply stuff later on. It's not really a new argument, just a new application of that argument. For example, my partner dropped Asia Pivot in the 1AR, but I was able to cross-apply a "controlling impact" that was extended on case to take out any risk of the disad.

 

It should also be noted that the dropped offcase has to somehow outweigh / turn the case. You don't just automatically win if they drop the "hand soap is bad" Kritik

Don't drop the soap...

  • Upvote 4

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...