Jump to content
SpookBuster

ODT Round 1 - SpookBuster [A] vs. TheTrashDebater [N]

Recommended Posts

new 2nc (or even 1nr) cp's are usually justified to solve add-ons or kick out of straight turned da's (like wimsatt did in ndt semis!).

For future reference, how does one kick a straight-turned DA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it depends on the da, but the most obvious example is an agenda politics da, say TPP. if the 2ac read a non-UQ + link turn to the da, then 2nc cp: "usfg should pass tpp" resolves the link turn strategy through fiat. if they straight up impact turned the da by saying tpp bad, then 2nc cp: "usfg should not pass tpp" would take out 1nc uq

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just curious - why are new k's in the 2nc (always) theoretically abusive assuming that it doesn't violate the neg's condo interp? i think that there are at least a few instances where it's okay to read new k's:

 

in policy debates, new 2nc (or even 1nr) cp's are usually justified to solve add-ons or kick out of straight turned da's (like wimsatt did in ndt semis!). the ndt '11 finals round btween northwestern and stephen weil+ovas collapsed entirely down to a new dedev turn based off a single line in a piece of 2ac ev. in fact, teams read new T shells in the 2nc sometimes

 

i think that if the 2ac read a new add-on with a china expansionism impact for example, then a 2nc pik out of china threat reps would be dope and justified because the opportunity cost of the new k was generated by the new source of 2ac offense, plus new 2ac add-ons are like breaking new advantages and probably warrant greater neg flex while solving aff fairness concerns

I think Kyler's statement was in the context of no new 2AC add-ons. That NDT finals you reference also demonstrates the sort of late-breaking analysis that structurally favors the Aff that Kyler talked out. Weil was extraordinarily smart to make that turn, but the only reason they won Hardy's ballot was because Matt forgot to read Warming defense. Matt read a ungodly amount of cards in the 1AR (11 I think), so it made Weil's 2NR extremely difficult and made the 2AR much easier than if Ovais had been able to read it in the 1NC.

 

Note - In both rounds you mentioned, both teams lost and the combined ballots they won was 1 out of 12 possible. Not that it shows what happens in every round, but food for thought.

  • 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...