Jump to content

Recommended Posts

New DA, yes.  New CP, probably, but more questionable.  Have a theoretical defense of it ready if possible.  In general, try not to do either because it creates late-breaking debates, which both tend to be lower quality, and probably benefit the aff more than the neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when people do that against me when I am AFF (especially with CP) I read theory about how 2NC CP/DA are bad and unfair for debate, and as a novice last year, most judges went with that argument.

 

***If you are looking for this theory it is in most theory files or PM me for some***

 

Is that what you should do to answer a 2NC CP or DA as AFF? Or is there a better way?

Edited by mauchline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nc CP bad is a decent argument, but don't rely on it.  The 2nc is still a constructive, and some judges think the neg should be able to introduce any positions it wants in that speech.  Your best bet is probably to have the 1ar read the relevant 2ac blocks (if they don't have time for the whole block, pick and choose the best answers; presumably the 2a already knows what they are).  The amount of work the 2nr will need to do to have a chance on the position is pretty massive, particularly since the block presumably won't have had time to develop their other strats as much (they essentially have to give the 2nc and the 2nr, and answer theory and case in one speech).  Also, the 2ar will have a lot of room for extrapolation and development, given how much will have been done in the 2nr, so you may as well beat them on substance.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nc CP bad is a decent argument, but don't rely on it.  The 2nc is still a constructive, and some judges think the neg should be able to introduce any positions it wants in that speech.  Your best bet is probably to have the 1ar read the relevant 2ac blocks (if they don't have time for the whole block, pick and choose the best answers; presumably the 2a already knows what they are).  The amount of work the 2nr will need to do to have a chance on the position is pretty massive, particularly since the block presumably won't have had time to develop their other strats as much (they essentially have to give the 2nc and the 2nr, and answer theory and case in one speech).  Also, the 2ar will have a lot of room for extrapolation and development, given how much will have been done in the 2nr, so you may as well beat them on substance.

Isn't the issue that you can't bring up new arguments in the 1AR? So if the AFF read any of the 2AC blocks wouldn't the negative just go up in the 2NR and say that they brought up new evidence? 

 

So could the 1AR go up and read 2NC bad theory and also some substance? Would that be the best strat? or would simply substances be best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the issue that you can't bring up new arguments in the 1AR? So if the AFF read any of the 2AC blocks wouldn't the negative just go up in the 2NR and say that they brought up new evidence? 

 

So could the 1AR go up and read 2NC bad theory and also some substance? Would that be the best strat? or would simply substances be best?

1. The 1ar can't bring up new arguments against positions introduced in the 1nc (and even that's somewhat flexible).  If the first time a position was introduced in the block, then the 1ar can say pretty much whatever it wants.  If the 2nr on a DA first introduced in the 2nc is "new 1ar arguments bad", then they look like an idiot, the judge really doesn't want to vote on them, and it gives you a ridiculously easy abuse story if you go for theory.

2. Theory and substance is probably best; my personal preference is to go for substance whenever possible, but theory is an entirely valid strategy if you know what you're doing and properly develop it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New stuff in the 2nc is bad unless its based off of something like discourse that was said in the 2ac (i.e. fem, ableism, etc.) 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key thing is that you shouldn't have to read a new CP in the 2nc, if it all possible it would be better not to be in a scenario where you need that new advocacy to survive the round, and unless it's something along the lines Payton said, and it's a reactionary argument (as opposed to something planned out before time), you're probably not putting yourself in a good spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what you should do to answer a 2NC CP or DA as AFF? Or is there a better way?

 

 

Sure, theory's one way to handle it, but really, try to find a turn to read in the 1AR. This makes their 2NR a nightmare, because 1AR turns on new args in the Block turn the 2NR from a primarily offensive speech to a mostly defensive speech.

 

Personally, I don't find new 2NC off case arguments to be strategic for this very reason.

 

 

I also agree with Payton.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New stuff in the 2nc is bad unless its based off of something like discourse that was said in the 2ac (i.e. fem, ableism, etc.) 

i think people who dont live in the 4th century agree with this

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it encouraged/frowned upon to read new external impacts in the block for a disad read in the 1NC?

 

It's neither encouraged nor discouraged really,

 

It runs the same risk of being turned in the 1AR that I discussed above, yet it's not really abusive because the 2AC had a good chance to deal with the Uniqueness and Link. 

 

This is usually best done if they mishandled the Uq and/or Link, and you're losing your other off-case positions, you can bulk up the DA they mishandled with more impact scenarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New stuff in the 2nc is bad unless its based off of something like discourse that was said in the 2ac (i.e. fem, ableism, etc.) 

Not particuarly, sure many judges are on the side of "no new in the block", but at the same time you could justify a new DA or something based on a 2AC or CX answer to the 1NC, but new in the 2 is generally bad.

 

Is it encouraged/frowned upon to read new external impacts in the block for a disad read in the 1NC?

that's perfectly fine, but in most cases unless the 2AC impact turned the disad, you're better off not reading new impact scenarios unless you're using them for turns case arguments, since it'll take away from the time you spend answering the actual responses. Even in the best case scenario, where the 2AC massively drops the ball on a disad, or doesn't answer the impact it's better to not read it because you could have an instance where the 1AR could use your new impact scenarios as justifications to new answers on other parts of the disad. The only reason you'd want to read new impacts in an impact turn debate is because nothing else particuarly matters that much.

  • Downvote 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...

×
×
  • Create New...