Jump to content
darkwielder

how to win on t?

Recommended Posts

we often run t, but just as an extra offcase...

 

so i was wondering, how do most people win solely on T/framework and how do they like make analytics on it for the whole 2nc and 2nr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Impact education and fairness

2. Caselist of affs you allow

3. Topical version of the aff

 

I'm missing a lot but I'm not incredibly qualled to talk about reasonability and stuff so anyone else go ahead on that.

 

 

Edit: post # 420

Edited by Hannahkiin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Impact education and fairness

2. Caselist of affs you allow

3. Topical version of the aff

 

I'm missing a lot but I'm not incredibly qualled to talk about reasonability and stuff so anyone else go ahead on that.

 

 

Edit: post # 420

i saw some people saying that advocacy skills was better than arguing fairness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Debate the interpretations.  This means winning that your interpretation is good for debate.  This usually involves a case list of possible affirmatives that would be topical under your interpretation in order to show that you allow plenty of aff flex.  The next part is the competing interpretations/reasonability debate.  This is always a bit of a stupid debate in my opinion, and you can squash it pretty quickly.  Reasonability is just an internal link if you will into evaluating competing interpretations.  Any interpretation of reasonability beyond that is just ridiculous (i.e. "we're not really development but hey, who cares).  Just beat something like that in the impact analysis.

 

2. Standards debate.  These are your links/internal links.  You need to win stuff like predictability, limits, and ground in order to control and internal link to fairness and education.  Explain how that aff is unpredictable, vastly over limits the topic, and obviates neg ground.

 

3. Impact fairness and education.  Why are these things good for debate, but in the 2NR especially you should be talking about how they destroy these things, which in turn destroys debate (i.e. something like limits turns participation).  

 

4. Some sort of impact or risk analysis.  You should probably at some point weigh your T violation in some manner that frames the round or the ballot for the judge.  For example, if you made a limits turns participation argument in the block, which the 1AR is too time pressed to address well or at all, you should be explaining how something like participation is a meta-level issue and thus a risk that they damage the way in which debate functions means the judge votes neg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when I run T I run it primarily as a time skew. Generally, I'm pretty good at theory so my partner and I either kick T in the 2NR if the affirmative put a bunch of legitimate arguments or I go for it when it's obvious that I can win off of it. Second, you really shouldn't be going for T unless you genuinely believe that the affirmative isn't topical and/or is ruining debate. Always remember to explain to the judge your standards and voters, and if you practice enough, you should be able to go for T if it's a viable option. Really, the best way I've learned T and theory in general is just practice writing theory shells on the fly or making up standards in your mind. You'll find that you like to default to a couple of standards and arguments such as Critical Thinking, and you should probably become proficient in the arguments you like best.

 

 

Then again, I may be wrong because I'm only second year in a super lay local circuit.

 

EDIT: I forgot, a really helpful thing my coach told me about T is to win the interp debate. A very good argument to make while debating competing interpretations is to brainstorm five popular affirmatives that would be allowed under your interp, and brainstorm five popular affirmatives that wouldn't fit under your opponents' interp. In my eyes, it's a very effective way to win limits/grounds. When you win those, you can do all sorts of crazy stuff with fairness and education because usually your opponents will not be able to sufficiently respond to this argument, and you basically control the i/ls. This argument itself has won me quite a few debate rounds. However, you have to be able to frame the argument in a way that is easily accessible by the judge--if you make it really clear that they are destroying debate or whatever, you can win the round (which is another reason why practicing theory is so important).

Edited by crazyman1090
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when I run T I run it primarily as a time skew. Generally, I'm pretty good at theory so my partner and I either kick T in the 2NR if the affirmative put a bunch of legitimate arguments or I go for it when it's obvious that I can win off of it. Second, you really shouldn't be going for T unless you genuinely believe that the affirmative isn't topical and/or is ruining debate. Always remember to explain to the judge your standards and voters, and if you practice enough, you should be able to go for T if it's a viable option. Really, the best way I've learned T and theory in general is just practice writing theory shells on the fly or making up standards in your mind. You'll find that you like to default to a couple of standards and arguments such as Critical Thinking, and you should probably become proficient in the arguments you like best.

 

 

Then again, I may be wrong because I'm only second year in a super lay local circuit.

 

EDIT: I forgot, a really helpful thing my coach told me about T is to win the interp debate. A very good argument to make while debating competing interpretations is to brainstorm five popular affirmatives that would be allowed under your interp, and brainstorm five popular affirmatives that wouldn't fit under your opponents' interp. In my eyes, it's a very effective way to win limits/grounds. When you win those, you can do all sorts of crazy stuff with fairness and education because usually your opponents will not be able to sufficiently respond to this argument, and you basically control the i/ls. This argument itself has won me quite a few debate rounds. However, you have to be able to frame the argument in a way that is easily accessible by the judge--if you make it really clear that they are destroying debate or whatever, you can win the round (which is another reason why practicing theory is so important).

thx , i need to like practice making theory shells on the fly

 

i think that helps, generally other than: why their interp is bad for debate, why untopical affs hurt education and fairness, what else should i add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx , i need to like practice making theory shells on the fly

 

i think that helps, generally other than: why their interp is bad for debate, why untopical affs hurt education and fairness, what else should i add

The only legit theory is CP theory, Perm Theory (this is situational), and Condo Bad 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only legit theory is CP theory, Perm Theory (this is situational), and Condo Bad 

Uhh... Perf-con?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh... Strategic cross-applications?  Negation theory? Part of the condo debate?

I've always had a mental separation from the conditionality debate and perf-con. I'm presuming that's just me then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do most of you not like T or FW because you all run k affs?

And you also feel really ripped off if they win off of T and they still dropped most of the substance debate. It also feels cheap to win off of T when you know you easily would've lost w/o it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i run an untopical, policy k aff. I go ham on the T flow

If you know that your aff isn't topical, it's not a policy aff, and if you're not trying to make your aff topical, why espouse a policy action.  You're just asking to lose to any team that likes K's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know that your aff isn't topical, it's not a policy aff, and if you're not trying to make your aff topical, why espouse a policy action.  You're just asking to lose to any team that likes K's

Its not that its untopical, its just very questionably topical. We just happen to have dope t cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do most of you not like T or FW because you all run k affs?

this made me laugh 10/10

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience with T, the key really is winning the interp debate (assuming you can prove they don't meet your interp)

 

How I go about winning the interp debate;

Standards: My standards are always

     Predictability: Accessed by showing that your interp is more logical; requires you to know your interp, and requires you to be able to make their interp look illogical. A lot easier if they are genuinely non-topical.

     Ground: The people before me said it best; the best way to support ground is to compare the affs that meet your interp to affs that can meet theirs. If you give a couple examples of affs that are stupidly untopical, but you can support that under their interpretation they would be, then you have a solid base on which to claim grounds as a standard

 

Another thing that comes up in T debate is the "No abuse" argument; the aff says that even if they aren't topical, they aren't causing major issues. To this, obviously you want to claim they personally are abusive, but if you can't do that, there's another option. If they claim "no abuse", make the argument that a bright line is key to effective limits; you can't let them slide on T just because they are "close enough". That sets a precedent that Un-T plans can win anyway, which triggers all your impacts (Education, Fairness, Debate space destruction, etc)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precision :)

Exactly; you know, I've never actually run precision in a round, because for some reason nobody on my circuit seems to try to argue "no abuse" aside from myself. You probably know it better than I, if you want to correct/add to my explanation, I would appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×