Jump to content
kylerbuckner

Going 1-Off?

Recommended Posts

I'm not planning on it, but in the case that I do, how do rounds go where you read 1-off no case? I know that you should always engage the case, but I'm cutting a 1-Off strat for fun. How do you split the block? Are there any tips or tricks to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on what it is. Is it a kritik, I'd assume?

 

As far as generics:

 

1) Super tailor your argument to the Affirmative. Even if your evidence isn't specific, make analytical arguments about why the argument especially applies.

 

2) As far as splitting the block, you could prepare a solid 2NC shell with extensions and offensive arguments and just use the 1NR to answer everything in the 2AC.

 

3) Make a lot of framing arguments and take time to break down your position to ensure that the judge knows exactly what your argument is. No point in reading 26 minutes of psychoanalysis if the judge doesn't understand a word of it.

 

Generally I wouldn't go 1-off with case not to mention without it, but good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on what it is. Is it a kritik, I'd assume?

 

It's actually a 1-off spending DA. Common mistake though.

 

For reelz tho, there's two ways to split the block. One, the 2NC tries to go for too much and gives the 1NR perms, theory, and framework. I recommend just splitting the flow in round (I.e. actually marking where on the flow the 2NC is going to end), and going straight down. It makes more sense for the judge and makes it more likely you'll get to everything in time (personal opinion).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how to actually do it if you want to win

Step 1) Don't go 1 off. Have T in there (note, even if a K, you can still say T. Framework is tricky, because of potential contradictions, but as long as you don't say they have to defend process (IE state) you should be good).

Step 2) Don't go for one off without case. The off should be about 3.5 to 4 minutes of the 1NC and the case should be the 4.5 to 4 minutes remaining.

Step 3) 2NC should be case with some of the K, and the 1NR should be the rest of the K. 

Step 4) Don't overextend yourself in the 2NR. Make sure in the block that you've packaged your link arguments with independent DA's and alt solvency so that you can pick and choose specific modules that you're winning and go for those. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a 1-off spending DA. Common mistake though.

I think you were confused. You must be talking about the 1-off, no case, elections disad. The strategy is that you run Donald Trump conditionally and then kick him to turn the Aff offense.

 

There's not much a point in going 1-off no case. You could at least present analytical case arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a 1-off spending DA. Common mistake though.

 

For reelz tho, there's two ways to split the block. One, the 2NC tries to go for too much and gives the 1NR perms, theory, and framework. I recommend just splitting the flow in round (I.e. actually marking where on the flow the 2NC is going to end), and going straight down. It makes more sense for the judge and makes it more likely you'll get to everything in time (personal opinion).

How long should the overview be? Also, how do you know where to cut the flow?

 

Here's how to actually do it if you want to win

Step 1) Don't go 1 off. Have T in there (note, even if a K, you can still say T. Framework is tricky, because of potential contradictions, but as long as you don't say they have to defend process (IE state) you should be good).

Step 2) Don't go for one off without case. The off should be about 3.5 to 4 minutes of the 1NC and the case should be the 4.5 to 4 minutes remaining.

Step 3) 2NC should be case with some of the K, and the 1NR should be the rest of the K. 

Step 4) Don't overextend yourself in the 2NR. Make sure in the block that you've packaged your link arguments with independent DA's and alt solvency so that you can pick and choose specific modules that you're winning and go for those. 

It's kind of a critique of debate, and I feel like debating the case would probably be a contradiction with the thesis of the K. I'm not planning to read this often, if at all, I just want to have it as a backup strat in case I get a judge that refuses to vote on framework, and I don't have anything else to work with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long should the overview be? Also, how do you know where to cut the flow?

Don't read overviews. Overviews are for the 2AC's where they drop a case flow and you want a 15-20 second extension.

 

 

It's kind of a critique of debate, and I feel like debating the case would probably be a contradiction with the thesis of the K. I'm not planning to read this often, if at all, I just want to have it as a backup strat in case I get a judge that refuses to vote on framework, and I don't have anything else to work with. 

1) If your K can't include case you're doing it wrong. If you want a K of the debate space against K teams, then something like Tuck and Yang makes more sense and allows you to debate case. It also doesn't make your judge think this entire round was a waste of time. They got up at 6AM to come and judge y'all, so as a general rule of thumb, "debate bad" is like negatively persuasive. 

2) Even if they won't vote on framework, that's why you run T. They'll say the law is bad, but it won't be responsive because you don't say they have to defend fiated state action. It's all about that limits and ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you need an overview. You need to do one of two things, or both:

1. You need to explain and flush out the thesis of the kritik if it is not apparent by now. If you just read 8 minutes of high theory and are about to read another 13, it helps to have a short, coherent explanation somewhere in the block. The top of the 2NC is good for this.

2. You need to highlight conceded or mishandled arguments that problematize the debate. You just read 8 minutes of a kritik, there will be some. You need to make them a big deal, and not try to hide them on the line by line.

 

As for the actual structure of the debate, after debating one off positions my senior year, and trying a ton of different structures, the best way to handle it is to have a short-medium overview at the top (2 minutes at the most) then line by line. The 2NC needs to prep downwards on the flow, and the 1NR needs to prep upwards so that wherever the 2NC leaves off, the 1NR can pick up on.

This keeps the flow as clean as possible and doesn't confuse the judge.

 

In a world where the 1NR takes the entirety of the line by line, things will be massively undercovered and the 1N will drop something.

In a world where the block separates arguments so that the 1NR takes Framework, the Perm, etc., the flow gets messy because you just move shit around on the judge.

 

Edit: On the need for including case in the 1NC or whatever, if you're reading a good kritik, it should answer the case without the need for reading external defense. If the kritik you're reading doesn't answer the case, you shouldn't be reading that kritik.

Edited by FettyWap
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you need an overview. You need to do one of two things, or both:

1. You need to explain and flush out the thesis of the kritik if it is not apparent by now. If you just read 8 minutes of high theory and are about to read another 13, it helps to have a short, coherent explanation somewhere in the block. The top of the 2NC is good for this.

2. You need to highlight conceded or mishandled arguments that problematize the debate. You just read 8 minutes of a kritik, there will be some. You need to make them a big deal, and not try to hide them on the line by line.

 

As for the actual structure of the debate, after debating one off positions my senior year, and trying a ton of different structures, the best way to handle it is to have a short-medium overview at the top (2 minutes at the most) then line by line. The 2NC needs to prep downwards on the flow, and the 1NR needs to prep upwards so that wherever the 2NC leaves off, the 1NR can pick up on.

This keeps the flow as clean as possible and doesn't confuse the judge.

 

In a world where the 1NR takes the entirety of the line by line, things will be massively undercovered and the 1N will drop something.

In a world where the block separates arguments so that the 1NR takes Framework, the Perm, etc., the flow gets messy because you just move shit around on the judge.

 

Edit: On the need for including case in the 1NC or whatever, if you're reading a good kritik, it should answer the case without the need for reading external defense. If the kritik you're reading doesn't answer the case, you shouldn't be reading that kritik.

I agree.

 

We split it straight down. It honestly depends on the 2AC, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of the things mentioned in the overview are better served on the line by line.

 

1) You should be tagging your 1NC such that the explanation of the K is very clear. If the judge doesn't know the argument you're making coming off of the 1NC you have failed.

2) Each link should have its own explanation, impact, and alternative solvency claim. You need the K to be modular because otherwise you only hurt yourself in the 2NR because you can't collapse down well enough. I've seen this happen too many times to otherwise good high school K debaters, because they didn't make the K modular, to win the arguments they need to win, they have to win 3 other parts of the flow, which means that they

i) Overextend themselves and don't do enough analysis

ii) Make the flow a mess because to evaluate any single argument they also have to win those other 3, which means the 2AR can literally just pick and choose their offense. The 2NR needs to close every door the aff could go for, and the only way to do that is to set yourself up right in the block.

Furthermore, you can explain the story of your arguments better if they're not broken up for a few reasons.

i) You can go more in depth. Instead of trying to hash it out in 2 sentences very quickly, you can contextualize your arguments to a much better degree.

ii) Your K never just makes one argument. You become more specific because you're not trying to cram in 3 other meta-pieces of the flow

 

3) You don't do this work in the overview because the 2AC sets the agenda for the K. Sorry, but the one doing the responding is the one who is setting the order. To be seen as responsive, you need to be having that clash happen directly on the flow, not on top (or even a different sheet of paper). Because guess what? If the aff does their 'case outweighs work' halfway down the flow and your K outweighs stuff is on another sheet of paper, you're perceptually behind. And, they get the last speech, which means they get to cherry pick what they want to do which only screws you over more.

i) This perception is also critical when you're hitting teams better than you are, because if you aren't seen as directly responding to their arguments and doing more work then they are then the judge is probably going to fill in holes for the team that they think is ahead. It's not "fair" but that's how debate works so you can adapt or be one of the thousands of high school K debaters who doesn't end up scoring the kinds of upsets that gets them bids. 

 

4) If they mishandle or drop an argument, it makes negative sense to do that in the overview, because then it's not going to be lined up correctly at all. You need to be able to have the judge look at their flow after the round and point to that direct comparison on their flow instead of seeing on the overview and then disregarding it or giving it less weight because they're not sure how it fits into the string of arguments they have to put together. This is also another point where doing it on the line by line is better because you can contextualize it and impact it out to a better sense than a 8 second sound bite in the overview. 

 

Let me give you some examples from things that I've actually seen happen while judging

Like, I've seen teams who have things like this in their overview, "They conceded that liberal subjectivity is nihilistic violence, this means we control the root cause to their impacts" and then...nothing else gets said. They cover it in the overview and then have completely wasted their time because that sentence by itself is not enough for me to actually vote on if the aff pushes back even a little bit.

Now, some slightly better teams will read that sentence, and then when they get to the appropriate part of the flow will either reference it or contextualize it there, but now they've wasted their time with that overview because they've just repeated themselves for absolutely no reason. All it does is waste those 8 seconds that could go somewhere else on the flow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that this is so late and doesn't have much to do with the way the discussion is going, but I would never go 1-Off. Why limit yourself to a sole 2nr strat? It seems really dumb in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that this is so late and doesn't have much to do with the way the discussion is going, but I would never go 1-Off. Why limit yourself to a sole 2nr strat? It seems really dumb in my opinion

1) Dumb is ableist, if you want to evoke a sense of absurdity, use stupid. It's the difference between being not intelligent, and being ignorant. One you can help, the other you can't. 

2) Some people believe in rhetorical legitimacy. Reading Security and a Terror DA in the same 1NC just irks me. It's a personal preference. 

3) Performance Negs. 

4) Some people know what they're 2NR is going to be before the round.

5) Depth > Breadth

6) You control the debate. You can utilize the time to deconstruct certain 'isms and give an in depth analysis of your arguments. 

 

There are probably a lot more, and better reasons, but I feel that it is viable to go 1-Off sometimes. (Although, I typically read case)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Dumb is ableist, if you want to evoke a sense of absurdity, use stupid. It's the difference between being not intelligent, and being ignorant. One you can help, the other you can't. 

2) Some people believe in rhetorical legitimacy. Reading Security and a Terror DA in the same 1NC just irks me. It's a personal preference. 

3) Performance Negs. 

4) Some people know what they're 2NR is going to be before the round.

5) Depth > Breadth

6) You control the debate. You can utilize the time to deconstruct certain 'isms and give an in depth analysis of your arguments. 

 

There are probably a lot more, and better reasons, but I feel that it is viable to go 1-Off sometimes. (Although, I typically read case)

1) Stupid is also historically ableist and used to describe people with mental disabilities and has negative connotations. If you want to invoke a sense of absurdity say ridiculous or absurd, why use ableist synonyms? 

2) You can have not 1 off strategies that are consistent. 

3) I've debated a performance team that went 4 off - performance ≠ 1 off always. 

4) That's not good, it doesn't allow you to take advantage of specific things that happen in-round. 

5) You can go in depth with multiple off lol, 1 off doesn't mean that you get depth necessarily. It just means you're restricting yourself to only one position (which is valuable at times, especially when reading identity based arguments or complex high theory). 

6) Not really, it's still a trade off because the 2AC gets to impact turn and largely deconstruction your -isms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that this is so late and doesn't have much to do with the way the discussion is going, but I would never go 1-Off. Why limit yourself to a sole 2nr strat? It seems really dumb in my opinion

If you're reading an identity based argument like anti-blackness, for example, then it's probably better to not read it conditionally especially if you are not black considering that you are performatively enacting the fungibility of blackness when you kick the argument, and open yourself up to a lot of criticism. 

 

Additionally, even though I responded somewhat sarcastically above, I still think that there are discussions that need to go in depth and be focused on a singular issue. It also narrows the debate and doesn't allow for a sneaky 2A to make cross-applications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Stupid is also historically ableist and used to describe people with mental disabilities and has negative connotations. If you want to invoke a sense of absurdity say ridiculous or absurd, why use ableist synonyms? 

2) You can have not 1 off strategies that are consistent. 

3) I've debated a performance team that went 4 off - performance ≠ 1 off always. 

4) That's not good, it doesn't allow you to take advantage of specific things that happen in-round. 

5) You can go in depth with multiple off lol, 1 off doesn't mean that you get depth necessarily. It just means you're restricting yourself to only one position (which is valuable at times, especially when reading identity based arguments or complex high theory). 

6) Not really, it's still a trade off because the 2AC gets to impact turn and largely deconstruction your -isms. 

You're right on number one, apologies. I also think that reading a performance with other off case that don't bolster/include a similar performance, seems like the epitome of commodification, as one can seem disinterested in the performance itself, and more focused on 'shotgunning' the other team. 

 

If you're reading an identity based argument like anti-blackness, for example, then it's probably better to not read it conditionally especially if you are not black considering that you are performatively enacting the fungibility of blackness when you kick the argument, and open yourself up to a lot of criticism. 

 

Additionally, even though I responded somewhat sarcastically above, I still think that there are discussions that need to go in depth and be focused on a singular issue. It also narrows the debate and doesn't allow for a sneaky 2A to make cross-applications. 

 

This was mainly what I was referring to previously. There is obviously no benefit to reading one off cap, but I do think that identity and higher theory should be given more time and shouldn't be as lenient towards contradictions.  e.g Afropessimism, with XO and Politics, makes me pretty upset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Dumb is ableist, if you want to evoke a sense of absurdity, use stupid. It's the difference between being not intelligent, and being ignorant. One you can help, the other you can't. 

I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or not. Based on the rest of your comments, I'm guessing not. "Stupid" is ableist too. That's an absurd distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Dumb is ableist, if you want to evoke a sense of absurdity, use stupid. It's the difference between being not intelligent, and being ignorant. One you can help, the other you can't. 

I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or not. Based on the rest of your comments, I'm guessing not. "Stupid" is ableist too. That's an absurd distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or not. Based on the rest of your comments, I'm guessing not. "Stupid" is ableist too. That's an absurd distinction.

You're right. Previous knowledge had lead me to believe otherwise, but I know that it was ridiculous for me to claim that. 

Edited by DonaldTrump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of the things mentioned in the overview are better served on the line by line.

 

1) You should be tagging your 1NC such that the explanation of the K is very clear. If the judge doesn't know the argument you're making coming off of the 1NC you have failed.

I don't know why you wouldn't clear it up further in the 2NC. The 2AC will characterize the 1NC as something that it's not, and your explanation of the kritik should be at the top so the judge has that model for evaluating your answers versus theirs.

2) Each link should have its own explanation, impact, and alternative solvency claim. You need the K to be modular because otherwise you only hurt yourself in the 2NR because you can't collapse down well enough. I've seen this happen too many times to otherwise good high school K debaters, because they didn't make the K modular, to win the arguments they need to win, they have to win 3 other parts of the flow, which means that they

i) Overextend themselves and don't do enough analysis

ii) Make the flow a mess because to evaluate any single argument they also have to win those other 3, which means the 2AR can literally just pick and choose their offense. The 2NR needs to close every door the aff could go for, and the only way to do that is to set yourself up right in the block.

I don't understand how this implicates anything I have said. Yes, each link needs to be impacted out, but if they concede a round winner, such as death isn't real, why would you not highlight that at the top?

Furthermore, you can explain the story of your arguments better if they're not broken up for a few reasons.

i) You can go more in depth. Instead of trying to hash it out in 2 sentences very quickly, you can contextualize your arguments to a much better degree.

ii) Your K never just makes one argument. You become more specific because you're not trying to cram in 3 other meta-pieces of the flow

These aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not saying break the arguments up. I agree that too often K teams have these long overviews at the top of their flows which make the round messy. All I'm saying is a quick "Look, they have dropped this argument coming out of the 2AC, this implicates all of their case because of (X) and you should frame all their answers as (X) because of this argument.

 

3) You don't do this work in the overview because the 2AC sets the agenda for the K. Sorry, but the one doing the responding is the one who is setting the order. To be seen as responsive, you need to be having that clash happen directly on the flow, not on top (or even a different sheet of paper). Because guess what? If the aff does their 'case outweighs work' halfway down the flow and your K outweighs stuff is on another sheet of paper, you're perceptually behind. And, they get the last speech, which means they get to cherry pick what they want to do which only screws you over more.

i) This perception is also critical when you're hitting teams better than you are, because if you aren't seen as directly responding to their arguments and doing more work then they are then the judge is probably going to fill in holes for the team that they think is ahead. It's not "fair" but that's how debate works so you can adapt or be one of the thousands of high school K debaters who doesn't end up scoring the kinds of upsets that gets them bids. 

I don't think any judge perceives a team as behind because they had a massive K overview with a ton of case o/w at the top instead of halfway down the flow. But I am also not saying do your K outweighs case analysis at the top.

 

4) If they mishandle or drop an argument, it makes negative sense to do that in the overview, because then it's not going to be lined up correctly at all. You need to be able to have the judge look at their flow after the round and point to that direct comparison on their flow instead of seeing on the overview and then disregarding it or giving it less weight because they're not sure how it fits into the string of arguments they have to put together. This is also another point where doing it on the line by line is better because you can contextualize it and impact it out to a better sense than a 8 second sound bite in the overview. 

If the argument is dropped, and the 2AC sets the order, where does that argument go on the flow? (Hint, nowhere.)

 

Let me give you some examples from things that I've actually seen happen while judging

Like, I've seen teams who have things like this in their overview, "They conceded that liberal subjectivity is nihilistic violence, this means we control the root cause to their impacts" and then...nothing else gets said. They cover it in the overview and then have completely wasted their time because that sentence by itself is not enough for me to actually vote on if the aff pushes back even a little bit.

Now, some slightly better teams will read that sentence, and then when they get to the appropriate part of the flow will either reference it or contextualize it there, but now they've wasted their time with that overview because they've just repeated themselves for absolutely no reason. All it does is waste those 8 seconds that could go somewhere else on the flow. 

This seems like the difference between good and bad K teams, not the specific block structure. It's also a question of perception, and having the argument in the judges mind. If it is placed at the top of the flow, the judge will be thinking of it and it carries more weight in their mind than if they just think the round winner you made on the line by line is just an answers to one of their arguments.

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...