Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm a first year LD debater, going to CLD/VLD in three weeks. CPs, Disads, and Ks, are to be expected at this tournament. We haven't learned how to write nor answer any of these. Not looking to write any currently but I have no clue how to answer them. Or what to expect with them. I'm really freaking out for this tournament.. Any help appreciated.

Edited by Phantom707
Double topic; posts merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I kinda know where to start, are you pretty comfortable with traditional aff/neg case construction?

Yes, I know the basics of traditional cases and then answers, and am 98% comfortable in answering and writing.

Edited by bammytess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Learn what a permutation is

2. Learn to spread

3. Make theory and RVI blocks

4. Make a shit-ton of generic frontlines

1 & 2 are done. I don't know what your saying for #4. I don't know how to make correct theory and RVI blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a generic frontline is an answer to a K, DA, or CP that is generic and pre-written. It can answer any K or any CP, and it doesn't matter what K or CP it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 & 2 are done. I don't know what your saying for #4. I don't know how to make correct theory and RVI blocks.

Edit

Okay, Theory refers to a set of arguments that operate based off of in round conduct and implications. A good example is conditionality. When the neg runs a CP or a K with an alt, that counter advocacy has a status (conditional, unconditional, or dispositional). If the advocacy is conditional it means they can kick out of the argument and not go for it in the final rebuttal. Conditionality is the argument that the neg shouldn't get more than one conditional advocacy because it makes debate unfair for the affirmative. This argument is usually weighed before either case because it's about in round conduct.

 

 

 

 

I'll let someone else explain what theory is unless I get back in time, but any theory shell needs:

Interp

 

-The neg gets one conditional advocacy

 

Violation

 

-The neg read 3 conditional CP's

 

Standards

Voters

 

-Fairness, because the neg can kick out it means that any offense put on that flow is a waste of time and generates a huge time and strat skew. Potential abuse is a voter because we can't know what the neg is going to do in the 2nr until it's too late to recover.

 

 

(Some replace standards and voters with the generic "reasons to prefer")

 

RVI's are bad. They stand for reverse voter issues and...no. Any situation where a "reverse voting issue" would ever be relevant something that's actually an argument would do much better, like condo (conditionality).

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVI's are bad. They stand for reverse voter issues and...no. Any situation where a "reverse voting issue" would ever be relevant something that's actually an argument would do much better, like condo (conditionality).

 

Except he's talking about LD, where RVIs are somewhat less stupid and are actually a common strategy on the circuit. People justify RVIs by saying that the time skew against the aff is so bad that they should be allowed to collapse to theory in the 1AR in order to have a fair chance of winning.

Edited by actiniumblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except he's talking about LD, where RVIs are somewhat less stupid and are actually a common strategy on the circuit. People justify RVIs by saying that the time skew against the aff is so bad that they should be allowed to collapse to theory in the 1AR in order to have a fair chance of winning.

Time skew on what? Running an argument? If you're tossing the RVI on a negative position in general it seems ridiculous. What's the time break down of the 1NC to the 1AR? Like 7 min to 4 min? You get a 2AC before that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you tossing RVI's on? Any neg off case position?

 

No, just theory. The idea is that since theory moots six minutes of aff offense, that locks the aff into a 7-4-6 time skew and makes it impossible to effectively cover substance and theory, so you should be able to win on theory alone.

 

It's not the best argument in the world, but it definitely makes more sense than RVIs in policy.

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...