Jump to content
Munda

2NC Off-Case

Recommended Posts

So on my local circuit I am having an issue where teams will read all on-case in the 1NC and then all off-case in the 2NC. In one round the team read an 8 minute poem for the 1NC and then explained the poem, read a Cap K, and On-Case in the block. It makes the 1ar almost impossible and judges refuse to vote on theory because saying I don't have enough time and wasting time sounds bad to them. I have tried straight turns but the other team will just kick it and the judges don't know what a straight turn is or how it functions.
 

Please help me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on my local circuit I am having an issue where teams will read all on-case in the 1NC and then all off-case in the 2NC. In one round the team read an 8 minute poem for the 1NC and then explained the poem, read a Cap K, and On-Case in the block. It makes the 1ar almost impossible and judges refuse to vote on theory because saying I don't have enough time and wasting time sounds bad to them. I have tried straight turns but the other team will just kick it and the judges don't know what a straight turn is or how it functions.

 

Please help me

 

given your description of the judging pool, there's probably no hope for you. This technique is inherently abusive to the 1AR after the block because that speech is (ideally) composed of extensions of 2AC arguments given that the 2AC is in response to the 1NC. It is literally impossible to cover 8 minutes of new arguments plus 5 of the cherry picked 1NC extensions in 5 minutes, and should you somehow answer everything, you will ALWAYS undercover something. the 1AR is naturally a difficult speech to give because of the time crunch and the necessity of being efficient with your coverage of arguments, but this standard of debate (reading all new in the 2NC) exacerbates this difficulty to an unreasonable standard where the affirmative and negative never test the substance of each others' arguments. Also, the fact that the 2AC extensions and offense is predicated off of the 1NC means that you can't even answer the neg strat in your only reactionary constructive speech. Why anyone who calls themselves "educators" would endorse this pedagogical practice is beyond me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably have a standard talking about semantics and how the round switches from an in depth debate over fewer issues into the negative just throwing arguments on the flow in order to flood you out of the 1AR. Essentially, depth over breadth. 

 

Also, you should have a standard on education and how new in the 2 kills education because you only get the rebuttals to debate the 2NC arguments.

Going off of what you said about the judging pool, you would probably have a better chance going down an education route rather than an abuse route.

If nothing else, you should make sure to add something in that even if you lose the theory/framework debate, the judge should still use their discretion and give a little bit of leeway to 1AR drops.  

Edited by CodyGustafson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the general consensuses is to not use Time Skew and just overload on the theory debate and cross my fingers hoping the judges understand it

 

Thank you all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait they know how kritiks work but they don't know what a straight turn is. You may just need to do a clearer analysis of it in you 2AR (if your reading them in the 1AR) and there is always case outweighs. I feel like is the judges are that lay you should be able to win with persuasion and really clear analysis, impact calc ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the general consensuses is to not use Time Skew and just overload on the theory debate and cross my fingers hoping the judges understand it

 

I didn't know somebody suggested this. I also didn't know that it's impossible to keep theory simple and straightforward when not going for in-round abuse.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered having theory in the 2AC? I only have 1 example to work with, but I'll try to make it work:

1AC-Stuff

1NC-8 minute poem

2AC-----

If they didn't explain the poem until the 2NC then that means that the judges are probably going WTF at this point. Provided you can anticipate how this is actually going to tie into the case then you can spend a little bit of time attacking it, but that should leave you plenty of time to start your theory arguments. This means you can extend in the 1AR rather than trying to read new stuff, saving time, and gives you a stronger argument: "You see judge, like we told you they would, they purposely saved all their stuff for the 2NC for the sole purpose of making the 2AC pointless which is ridiculously abusive because 1) 2) 3)." Etc.

Edited by Atlas0Smirked
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered having theory in the 2AC? I only have 1 example to work with, but I'll try to make it work:

1AC-Stuff

1NC-8 minute poem

2AC-----

If they didn't explain the poem until the 2NC then that means that the judges are probably going WTF at this point. Provided you can anticipate how this is actually going to tie into the case then you can spend a little bit of time attacking it, but that should leave you plenty of time to start your theory arguments. This means you can extend in the 1AR rather than trying to read new stuff, saving time, and gives you a stronger argument: "You see judge, like we told you they would, they purposely saved all their stuff for the 2NC for the sole purpose of making the 2AC pointless which is ridiculously abusive because 1) 2) 3)." Etc.

 

This.  Predict their nonsense, put a voter on it in the 2AC, and then extend it when they do it and point to where and how they were abusive.  And give the analysis on fairness and debate theory in the 2AC so you don't have to give it in the 1AR.  (This also means that if the negative wants to go for 8 minutes of new stuff in the 2NC, they need to spend their 1NR answering your theory or they lose on it.  They can't go dig themselves out in the 2NR).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to fly through that much on case.....my guess is alot of it is:

1) defensive

2) status quo descriptive

3) not-specific

 

Its about figuring out whats important and whats not.

 

Give rebuttal redoes and get good at doing this.  It will make your 1ars that much better.

 

If you know its going to be capitalism....frame your affirmative to answer it.

Edited by nathan_debate

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...