Jump to content
Morganfreeman

inherancy take out

Recommended Posts

any tips for a 8 minute inherancy take out in the 1nc? What do these consist of? I'm being serious.

 

Nah, in my personal opinion it's not a good plan. Also, even if you are going to do it, the 2AC would just be like, we are inherent. Then just read like five reasons + maybe one or two cards. Unless they are like being dumb and reading an Aff that doesn't apply at all or has already been solved. But my advice would be to spend like 2 minutes max. if you are going to do it and attack them not just on one angle of their Aff, but multiple. For example with Real ID you could be like, not inherent Postponed to 2018, etc. And then be like, looking towards the future is bad then read your card on why we need to talk about now and how talking about the future child is bad. And just finish it off with something else or something... (I'm not a pro but I think that 8 minutes is just to much time wasted when the 2AC will only have to spend like max of 4 minutes responding to it, then u will have no Off and a crappy debate). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any tips for a 8 minute inherancy take out in the 1nc? What do these consist of? I'm being serious.

This is honestly a terrible idea. quality over quantity of evidence. Just because you spend 8 minutes spewing about 1 argument, doesn't mean you'll win.

A lot of judges(sadly) aren't voting for inherency as much anymore. A very progressive judge may just sweep that aside.

 

Check out the '8 minutes of inherency in the 1nc' forum. JK don't, that's a bad idea. We don't want you getting lost in the depths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't do it. i know someone who had to judge a round like that, and they were exasperated after the round. they hated it. the round was bland af

 

moreover, it's a bad idea because it's not strategically sound. why address inherency for 8 minutes in the 1nc when you could address it for 1-2 minutes in the 1nc, explode it in the block, and have other offcase/case positions to go off of if inherency doesn't work out for you? imo its better to talk about a k for 8 minutes than talk about inherency lmao,, 

 

but that's just me tbh whatever floats your boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no idea what yall are taking about inherency take outs are advanced strategies just like RVI's. Inherency take out first then RVI's, those are the top two arguments to run.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need 8 minutes of inherency take outs for you to win on inherency.

Either it doesn't have inherency at all or the aff has inherency. Don't waste your time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no idea what yall are taking about inherency take outs are advanced strategies just like RVI's. Inherency take out first then RVI's, those are the top two arguments to run.

Uh I think this is a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is inherency?

It's  Uniqueness except for Aff's. What inherency is is just a couple of cards that prove that your Aff is inherent or current. If your Aff is existant in the world today and it's background. It's like when you write an essay you have to have an introduction paragraph, well in debate you have the same thing and that is called inherency. For example if I am doing an Aff on War on Drugs I might need a card in the beginning stating that Obama renewed the Brant Act in 2008. So yeah something like that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's  Uniqueness except for Aff's. What inherency is is just a couple of cards that prove that your Aff is inherent or current. If your Aff is existant in the world today and it's background. It's like when you write an essay you have to have an introduction paragraph, well in debate you have the same thing and that is called inherency. For example if I am doing an Aff on War on Drugs I might need a card in the beginning stating that Obama renewed the Brant Act in 2008. So yeah something like that....

That was more than likely a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could potentially put some offense on an inherency argument- for example I ran inherency against a non inherent PRISM Aff last year and enforced a dubba bind which said either their harms exist and the plan has no risk for solvency or they are not problems anymorebecause plan is solving in the Squo. The offense iprobably comes from "we have literally no ground against essentially doing nothing," and or "neg always gets the status quo, plan exists in the status quo, so their plan and its offense belong to the neg"

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...