Jump to content
BestWorstNovice

Help on the Basics

Recommended Posts

I am new to debate and so please forgive some of these questions. First, how am I supposed to go about a 2AC? Am I supposed to just go line-by-line and then read evidence? Next, do I need to create a speech doc every round? Finally, do you have any advice for a novice going to their first tournament? Thank you! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have case extensions and answers to off case, case turns, and on case arguments the neg said. You should definitely read at least some evidence, but going line-by-line is SUPER important. If you have line-by-line (especially in the rebuttals) it can really help you organize the debate and possibly help you win. 

Mix up line-by-line and evidence in the 2AC. If you think you don't need evidence for something (especially on case, I would recommend reading evidence for most off case args), then just go line-by-line and make analytics. 

Yes for the speech doc question. I mean you technically don't, but you really should, especially for your 2AC.

Advice: 

Go on the wiki (if you don't know what this means, then ignore it) and look at especially the affs that will be read at this tournament, and prep out case negs and what you are going to say against them (this should be the job of your partner though).

Don't be nervous! It's most likely other people's first tournament too.

Everyone else is novices, so don't be worried about being too outmatched.

Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I see a lot of good debaters doing in their 2AC is usually do some form of case cross-application onto whatever Off-Case it is you're responding then responding to it with evidence; now, remember you DO NOT need evidence to respond to every single portion of an Off-Case position; for example, if your Affirmative is able to contest the link of a Kritik or a Disadvantage, then all you have to do is read evidence to address the other portions of the off-case position and analytically answer the link debate. 

 

Generally this presupposes extensive knowledge on the 1AC; one of the major, and recurring problems, I see in (novice) debates is that they simply do not know their evidence; this leads to pretty boring debates where neither side knows what they're talking about and the judge ends up getting really bored and ends up voting on some dumb reason. If you know your 1AC by heart (and this means knowing what every single card in your aff, or rather, what every single IMPORTANT card, says and are able to explain it coherently and swiftly) then you're gonna have a good time and are gonna blaze through preliminary rounds and even through break rounds. I say this because when you know your affirmative really well you're able to identify things that you do not need evidence to answer; for instance, say the other team reads a Spending Disadvantage and in your affirmative you have evidence that says you resolve fiscal downturns; you have "built-in" answers to off-case position that allow you to substantially increase your level of argumentation within a debate and allows you to save time in finding the right block you made for the certain off-case position. And that takes me to the next point. 

 

When thinking about what Blocks (2AC Frontlines to Negative Off-case Positions) you should make; you should think about what you would read against your affirmative or ask more experienced debaters on your team what they would read against your affirmative; and at the same time think about what if read against you wouldn't "link." After this make short, specific blocks against those arguments that, in the event they are read against you, would not link and then if you do hit it in a round, you don't have to think about why you don't link and just read it and you're good. Then read up on the off-case arguments that WILL be read against you, just short introductions will suffice, then create blocks that are responsive to those off-case positions. 

 

You do need to flash the evidence you're reading to your opponents (or email chain if you're about that life); but you do not need to flash your extensions and/or analytics. 

 

My golden advice is that don't go into the tournament expecting to go 6-0 and winning the entire tournament; debate is hard and the kids you'll be up against are incredibly smart and talented. If you end up losing every single debate then so be it; it was your first tournament anyways; that single tournament does not reflect or define your abilities as a debater. Hell, my entire first year consisted of me losing a bunch of rounds and then crying about it; I genuinely felt like quitting; then when I went into my 2nd year, after attending a short camp and studying for hours the rounds that were available on youtube, I was able to dominate in my area; then my 3rd year was utter destruction. Morale of the story: don't be demoralized and quit debate if you do bad your first time, just practice and practice some more and in no time you'll be receiving 30's every round. 

 

I'm quite busy this year but if you need any help, just PM me and I got you : ^ )

 

Edit 1: Also, shout-out to Tony Hackett from CKM for literally standing right next to me and not recognizing me this past weekend (and to Adam Martin for that incredible debate I judged) see y'all at CSUF : ^ )

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to debate and so please forgive some of these questions. First, how am I supposed to go about a 2AC? Am I supposed to just go line-by-line and then read evidence? Next, do I need to create a speech doc every round? Finally, do you have any advice for a novice going to their first tournament? Thank you! 

 

Line by line and evidence are not magically separate things.  You should read evidence as part of your line-by-line where appropriate.

 

In the 2AC, you will respond line-by-line to neg attacks on case.  If answering a point can be done analytically or by reference to 1AC evidence, great!  If answering a point requires new evidence, read it!  That's all line-by-line.

 

In the 2AC, against off-case arguments, you will typically not be responding line-by-line, because you will be creating the agenda for discussion of those issues.  (The speech after a constructed argument is presented, the other team gets to establish the agenda of what's being contested on that argument).  In these cases, you will simply raise points one after another, many of which will be carded and some of which might not be.  If you do specifically answer individual points (typically source indicts or analytical deconstruction of card claims), it's technically line-by-line, but you'll just put it in your list of issues (with signposting to identify what specifically you're attacking).

 

Similarly, this is why the 1NC on-case typically just looks like a list of points, because they're establishing the agenda of things they wish to contest.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should actually have a speech doc every speech. The 2ac, 1ar, and (if necessary) the 2ar should all be different docs.

 

Some 2ac things no one has mentioned yet

The first thing you should answer in the 2ac is either the case debate or a T/Theory debate if the neg started one. After you've talked about case, then you move on to the off case positions and answer those one at a time. For example, if they have a DA, a CP, and a K, you could decide that the order of your 2ac will be

Case

Da

Cp

K

You always want your case on top because this is the most important thing for you to win; your case should be used as leverage against their off case (for example, if your case has an advantage that solves global warming, an their DA has a food security impact, you can point out how global warming would destroy food security). Even if you lose all the off case flows, if you an prove why the aff is more important than all of that you still win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should actually have a speech doc every speech. The 2ac, 1ar, and (if necessary) the 2ar should all be different docs.

 

Some 2ac things no one has mentioned yet

The first thing you should answer in the 2ac is either the case debate or a T/Theory debate if the neg started one. After you've talked about case, then you move on to the off case positions and answer those one at a time. For example, if they have a DA, a CP, and a K, you could decide that the order of your 2ac will be

Case

Da

Cp

K

You always want your case on top because this is the most important thing for you to win; your case should be used as leverage against their off case (for example, if your case has an advantage that solves global warming, an their DA has a food security impact, you can point out how global warming would destroy food security). Even if you lose all the off case flows, if you an prove why the aff is more important than all of that you still win.

Shouldn't it go Case, K or CP, then DA? 

You can always win that your case outweighs or turns the DA, but it's harder to do so/more important to answer the K or CP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't it go Case, K or CP, then DA? 

You can always win that your case outweighs or turns the DA, but it's harder to do so/more important to answer the K or CP.

 

Depends on if you trust yourself to allocate time properly. If you do, putting the K at the bottom let's you just dump cards on it until the timer runs out.

If the DA is the net benefit to the CP, you have to win that to win the CP debate. It could come before or after, as long as you answer it it really doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on if you trust yourself to allocate time properly. If you do, putting the K at the bottom let's you just dump cards on it until the timer runs out.

If the DA is the net benefit to the CP, you have to win that to win the CP debate. It could come before or after, as long as you answer it it really doesn't matter.

Well, not necessarily; the perm may be enough. But the general point stands that time management is more important than order. Before your speech, you should allocate time to the off case and on case based on length and importance, and then stick to your time allocation. You have to watch your time throughout the 2AC, it may very well be the speech where time allocation is most important.

 

I'd add that you should, before the tournament, prepare frontlines specific to your case for every off case position you can think of that a Neg might run, and certainly every off case that a Neg has run against you. Frontlines are also good for common on-case arguments (e.g., if you have a Global Warming advantage, have a short "Answers to warming empirically denied" block). The less you have to come up with on the fly in the 2AC, the better.

  • Upvote 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...