Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello there,

 

I've been debating for 2 years now, but come from a team that has little to no coaching staff for policy (Our squad is mostly LD and Public Forum), so a lot of formalities and small execution tactics and styles are never explained really to us well.

 

That being said, next year will be my first year taking on the role of the 2AR - Note, I run kritikal race affs every round

 

What makes a good 2AR?

How should the structure of a 2AR look like?

Case on top? Bottom?

Should I spend a lot of time on framework vs case (assuming fw is read)

Just general things really

 

Any advice or general execution tips at all would be greatly appreciated. I understand, a lot of it depends on the round itself. 

 

Thanks

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would do off-case then framework then case. Do the off-case first because you want to be confident and dismissive of their offense. Then go to framework, and do good line-by-line, but focus on the best and most persuasive arguments you made and spend a little bit more time on those. Also, keep the initial violation that they brought up in mind of the fw debate fell apart. You want to end with case because you want that to be what the judges walk away with in their head. Focus on why your case cross-applies to moot their offense, and other line-by-line and overviews like you normally would. Try to write the ballot for the judge, I've even found it helpful to - although most would disagree - point out an argument that your opponent is winning. If they're obviously winning and you try to ignore that in your line-by-line, you can look like you're on the defense and losing. I've had a good experience with something along the lines of "So as far as the biodiversity flow, they did have an interesting point about the alt cause. However, even if biodiversity loss was inevitable, you'd still want to prioritize our economy impact because it is orders of magnitude more impactful." You don't have to do that, but - especially with lay judges - you want to tie emphasis and persuasion into your analysis. I've also gone against teams who promote their own evidence, "Now, on the agriculture flow, our Smith 07 evidence is really fantastic here because it turns their impact and offers several warrants as to why the internal link scenario is unlikely." That might be more of a 1AR thing, but I'm just saying. I lost a lot of debates because I focused on defense more than offense. You should be winning your on-case flows, and make sure you let the judge know why that matters in the context of any given round. This is all coming from a 2A that just finished JV with a lot of lay judges, so you might want to do things differently. Regardless, good luck.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a k aff make sure you do a lot of big picture analysis. Like why is your method comparatively better than the alternative. A lot of teams (myself included) get hung up too much on the line by line analysis which is important but isn't always as important as impact and method comparisons.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a k aff make sure you do a lot of big picture analysis. Like why is your method comparatively better than the alternative. A lot of teams (myself included) get hung up too much on the line by line analysis which is important but isn't always as important as impact and method comparisons. 

I actually disagree.  I think that K teams too often get absorbed in their grand impacts and huge overviews about methods at the expense of the techy stuff on the line-by-line.  Finding the two crucial concessions that the 2NR made is what is usually going to win the round, not so much the impact and method stuff as I understand what you are saying (not that you shouldn't have those things, just that I feel that the focus should be on the LBL instead).

 

However, I think that our opinions are mostly personal preference as to how we like to debate; I'm not sure that one way is objectively better than the other.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good 2AR's are hard to find, finding correct execution methods for them is even harder. 

 

I prefer a good ol hanging, but stoning to death or trying to explain DnG's philosophy as though any of the words they use mean what one would assume they mean are usually more gruesome. 

I feel bad for how much i laughed at this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To execute a good 2AR; it becomes tricky because, I assume, they probably buffed it up with Inner Fire or Blessing of the Kings. I'd probably either use Polymorph then use your hero ability to kill it or use Whirlwind and then execute; I think the first option requires 6 Mana, the 2nd option is only like 1, since it's late game it doesn't matter cuz they've probably already thrown out all of their big guns so you just gotta focus on sealing the deal 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To execute a good 2AR; it becomes tricky because, I assume, they probably buffed it up with Inner Fire or Blessing of the Kings. I'd probably either use Polymorph then use your hero ability to kill it or use Whirlwind and then execute; I think the first option requires 6 Mana, the 2nd option is only like 1, since it's late game it doesn't matter cuz they've probably already thrown out all of their big guns so you just gotta focus on sealing the deal 

 

lol hearthstones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, thread officially derailed.

 

The biggest thing to focus on is condensing. Pick your best advantage and your best few arguments on the off case that were extended and beat the 2nr over the head with them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively you could also use Siphon Soul or Shadow Word: Death; or maybe if you're messing with them use Mind Control to take over the 2AR entirely 

 

add me on Hearthstone 

 

Rainsilves #1647

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually disagree.  I think that K teams too often get absorbed in their grand impacts and huge overviews about methods at the expense of the techy stuff on the line-by-line.  Finding the two crucial concessions that the 2NR made is what is usually going to win the round, not so much the impact and method stuff as I understand what you are saying (not that you shouldn't have those things, just that I feel that the focus should be on the LBL instead).

 

However, I think that our opinions are mostly personal preference as to how we like to debate; I'm not sure that one way is objectively better than the other.

Meant to up vote. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually go with something more subtle like,"Judge I'll match my speaks in Benjamin's ;)". If I know we aren't gonna win I'll pull some strings and perform a casual striptease- it's a stylistic choice- truly.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good 2AR's are hard to find, finding correct execution methods for them is even harder. 

 

I prefer a good ol hanging, but stoning to death or trying to explain DnG's philosophy as though any of the words they use mean what one would assume they mean are usually more gruesome. 

 

"Coach, what do you think of your team's execution today?"

- Post game interviewer, 1979

 

 "I'm all for it".

- Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach John McCay

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...