Jump to content
DHGCARBON

First or second speaker

Recommended Posts

Is it harder to be the first or second speaker. I know they both have important roles but which one is harder? I've seen teamed who switch off on different sides. Does that mean one side is harder to speak second on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically the more skilled speaker will be the first affirmative (because of the difficulty of the time-pressured 1AR) and the second negative (because of the 2NR's difficulty and the 1NC/R's relative ease).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically the more skilled speaker will be the first affirmative (because of the difficulty of the time-pressured 1AR) and the second negative (because of the 2NR's difficulty and the 1NC/R's relative ease).

Really?? 

In most cases the more skilled aff debater is the 2ac. The 1ar may be difficult but a good 2ac is usually a good setup for the 1ar. 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? 

In most cases the more skilled aff debater is the 2ac. The 1ar may be difficult but a good 2ac is usually a good setup for the 1ar. 

 

Well, these are obviously general, and vary from team to team. Obviously when one debater is much more skilled they may be 2a/2n, and a slower but more skilled debater may be the 2ac, but I've found that the 1A/2n combination is pretty typical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my partner and I, although I am the better debater (not to say he isn't good), I am the 2A/1N because I can spread faster than him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most teams are 1A/2N and 1N/2A

 

In any given round, the 2 has the more important speeches. The reason that the better debater isn't always double 2s is because of the massive workload required to know ALL the neg arguments and ALL the aff arguments. A slightly weaker debater being the 1A and 2N is still better than a better debater who has to juggle between being 2N AND 2A

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it really depends on *how close in skill* the 2 debaters are.  If the skill difference is large, double 2s is more common.  If the skill difference isn't so large, the benefits of 1A/2N for the better one outweigh the possible resentment created by double-2s.  

 

(I'm not sure I believe the time requirement to know arguments - the 1A has to be at least as knowledgeable as the 2A to do the 1AR well).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most teams are 1A/2N and 1N/2A

 

In any given round, the 2 has the more important speeches. The reason that the better debater isn't always double 2s is because of the massive workload required to know ALL the neg arguments and ALL the aff arguments. A slightly weaker debater being the 1A and 2N is still better than a better debater who has to juggle between being 2N AND 2A

Speaking as a double 2, you're definitely going to need a lot of time on your hands to it effectively.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably for later, but me and my partner switch roles depending on what school/team we hit. We usually have 2 AFF's. So I'm the 1A for one, and the 2 for the other. I think it's important for the 2A to know the aff better. Especially if you're a novice idk if you are. Also the 2N is generally harder, just because of the 2NR. However I have seen teams make the faster spreader the 1N just so they can overwhelm the other team. Then the Block goes for dropped arguments. I think 2A & 1N should be able to spread the fastest, and as JosephOverman you dont really want to be a permanent double two. The work load would be immense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a novice, i chose to be a 2A/1N just because i wasn't about that 1AR life...now that I am varsity i slightly regret it but at the same time as a rising senior i would NOT chose to make any changes to my setup now. After a couple years in a given speaking position, you develop mini tips and tricks that you dont even realize you know which make you a far better speaker than someone who may be a better debater than you, but that doesn't regularly give the same speeches. There are a lot of times when as a 1N i wish i could give our 2NR...but in all honesty it probably would be worse than even a bad 2NR by my partner because he has had way more practice and experience at the speech than i have had. Also, im not a crazy fast speaker and i am really verbose which is great for persuasion, ie 2AR, but not for the dreaded 1ar. 

 

Also, in my opinions being double two's when it comes to aff doesn't mean anything. If your 1AR can't hold her/his own, then your 'superior' 2A skills aren't going to matter for the most part. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a novice, i chose to be a 2A/1N just because i wasn't about that 1AR life...now that I am varsity i slightly regret it but at the same time as a rising senior i would NOT chose to make any changes to my setup now. After a couple years in a given speaking position, you develop mini tips and tricks that you dont even realize you know which make you a far better speaker than someone who may be a better debater than you, but that doesn't regularly give the same speeches. There are a lot of times when as a 1N i wish i could give our 2NR...but in all honesty it probably would be worse than even a bad 2NR by my partner because he has had way more practice and experience at the speech than i have had. Also, im not a crazy fast speaker and i am really verbose which is great for persuasion, ie 2AR, but not for the dreaded 1ar. 

 

Also, in my opinions being double two's when it comes to aff doesn't mean anything. If your 1AR can't hold her/his own, then your 'superior' 2A skills aren't going to matter for the most part. 

If the 2ac does their job right the 1AR shouldn't be a hardship. Most if not all of the answers to offcase should have been developed in the 2ac and the 1ar should be extending the best arguments, not trying to make new ones. While there probably will be off the cuff stuff, it ideally should be at a minimum.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 2ac does their job right the 1AR shouldn't be a hardship. Most if not all of the answers to offcase should have been developed in the 2ac and the 1ar should be extending the best arguments, not trying to make new ones. While there probably will be off the cuff stuff, it ideally should be at a minimum.

As all debaters have experienced though, a bad 1ar will always find a way to drop a major argument out of the block, fail to extend the most important argument and instead extend a no link argument that probably shouldn't even have made the flow in the first place, will get caught in the headlights of a large flow and stumble through it making poor arguments or taking a long time to not really make any arguments at all, misunderstand an argument out of the block and attempt to answer it while failing to clash at all, etc. the 2ac can't give the speech for the 1ar so it takes a competent 1ar who understands the debate and who can still make her/his own arguments when it comes down to it if the aff wants to stand a chance in the 2ar. thats why no matter how perfect of a 2ac there might have been, you still need a capable 1ar. and i find that usually with double 2's, the partner in the 1 position is usually less skilled than the weaker partner of 2a/1n-2n/1a partnership. That's just my opinion tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 2ac does their job right the 1AR shouldn't be a hardship. Most if not all of the answers to offcase should have been developed in the 2ac and the 1ar should be extending the best arguments, not trying to make new ones. While there probably will be off the cuff stuff, it ideally should be at a minimum.

 

But 1AR impact turns are so fun

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that the roles of the better debater are 1nc and 2ac however I may be wrong. As far as I understand the 1nc is in charge of what needs to be ran and how to answer the affirmative(even though the 2nr is a hard speech). As for the 2ac they have to be more knowledgeable of the affirmative as they will be explaining rather than reading cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that the roles of the better debater are 1nc and 2ac however I may be wrong. As far as I understand the 1nc is in charge of what needs to be ran and how to answer the affirmative(even though the 2nr is a hard speech). As for the 2ac they have to be more knowledgeable of the affirmative as they will be explaining rather than reading cards.

 

Ideally the partners should be able to discuss what to run, especially if speeches are being flashed. I usually talked to my partner during inherency or when they were reading generic impact cards (like royal 10).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that the roles of the better debater are 1nc and 2ac however I may be wrong. As far as I understand the 1nc is in charge of what needs to be ran and how to answer the affirmative(even though the 2nr is a hard speech). As for the 2ac they have to be more knowledgeable of the affirmative as they will be explaining rather than reading cards.

 

In my experience, the 2N decides what to run on the neg. They're the one who gives the 2NR and ideally they know more about other affs than the 2A

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both have strengths and weaknesses; the most adaptable debater should be the 2AR.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the huge, major, difference between first and second speaker is that, the second speaker is easier for people who are good speakers and the first speaker is easier for the good readers. Like, if you spread and one of you can spread better than the other, that person needs to be the one. If you are just a really persuasive speaker, being the second is best. Always. I mean, the second rebuttal is what has to sell your side for the whole round. Again, that's just from my experience. (I'm double twos by the way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double 1's/2's only work in specific instances, but most times the perceived better debater is the 2N/1A because the 1AR/2NR are the hardest speeches in debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double 1's/2's only work in specific instances, but most times the perceived better debater is the 2N/1A because the 1AR/2NR are the hardest speeches in debate.

Double 2s should be avoided whenever possible because it creates skill disparities in the double 1 debater (they never give a 2_R) that hurts their development. Stronger development = stronger partner = stronger record = good.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double 2s should be avoided whenever possible because it creates skill disparities in the double 1 debater (they never give a 2_R) that hurts their development. Stronger development = stronger partner = stronger record = good.

Snarf has got a great point. I think the biggest mistake when having a partner who is noticeably worse than the other is having the better one be double 2s. Sure, it might win you some rounds, but when you get into a really competitive tournament and you're having to carry all the load every round and your partner isn't learning how to do anything but go through the motions, it's going to hurt the team overall.

 

In the end, I think you should put you and your partner at positions, then stick to them that way you learn all the skills that are necessary for that speech. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you really think you're the better debater, I think it's better to 1a/2n.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you really think you're the better debater, I think it's better to 1a/2n.

I feel like its the inverse - the neg can do the same generic positions and get really good at them, while the 2AC has to deal with all sorts of wild unpredictable shit that (1) answers the 1NC and (2) sets up the 1AR, which is easy following a good 2AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like its the inverse - the neg can do the same generic positions and get really good at them, while the 2AC has to deal with all sorts of wild unpredictable shit that (1) answers the 1NC and (2) sets up the 1AR, which is easy following a good 2AC.

I think that depends on your circuit and style. On the national circuit or a K-heavy area, that's probably right. In most policy heavy local circuits, most 2ACs should be 6-8 minutes of canned frontlines against common off case positions., which makes it the third easiest speech in the round. In a typical "Cuba Embargo Aff vs. China DA, BioD DA, Cap K, and case" round, the 2AC should be trivial, while the 2NC should be pretty tough.

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...