Jump to content
ellch20

Going for T in 2NR

Recommended Posts

This is probably stupid, but what do I need to do to successfully go for T in the 2NR? Like, how do I go from a shell to talking for 5 minutes about it? Please guide me to a thread that answers this if there is one, I searched but could not find one. In particular I'm thinking of running is T - Education where education must be strictly curriculum. I know that people don't go for T most of the time, but I just want to have the option to if I need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to prove why their interp is bad. Why reasonability is bad (or how they don't meet their brightline for it). Why the way they access their standards is bad. Why your standards are independent reasons to vote neg. Why your voters matter. Why they will always violate your interp. Also frame how their non-t aff affects debate outside of the round

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are their standards bad? (Allow too many plans, etc)

Why are your standards good? (Aff creativity, etc)

Why is T a voting issue (TS education, fairness, etc)

Competing interpretations good

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few "framing issues" I'll bring up at the top of a 2NR if they're relevant. Common ones are:

 

-"They have conceded the topical version of the Affirmative--conditional funding enables them to access their offense without using the courts--view the TVA as a counter-plan--it solves all their offense, and our standards are net-benefits to our interpretation."

 

-"The 1AR only extended a we-meet argument, but they've conceded competing interpretations. That means they don't have a way to solve any of their offense in an offense-defense paradigm and you default to our interpretation."

 

-"They've conceded (effects-topicality or extra-topicality) and that it's an independent voting issue--even if the part of the plan that funds and regulates is topical, including a court ruling in extra-topical and unfair to the Negative because they justify the resolution with extra-resolutional action."

 

There are some other ones, but I think starting a 2NR with an important or dropped argument that makes it a lot easier to frame the debate makes the judge more comfortable in voting Negative and lets you justify why you're going for T.

 

If none of those issues show up, just do it like you would in the 2NC. You can kind of do it in "levels." So at the "interpretation level" you can do the interpretation and the counter-interpretation and the definitions that support them--you can explain why their interpretation doesn't solve your offense and why it's by definition incorrect. At the "violation level" you have the violation, "we-meet," TVA, as well as effects-/extra-topicality. At the standards "level" you'll extend your standard, answer the arguments against it, extend your other standard, answer the arguments against that, and then answer any offensive reasons they say to prefer their interpretation or other generic defensive arguments. Alternatively, you can extend both standards and then line-by-line every 2AC standards argument (that's what I do). Then at the "voting issue level" you get fairness and education (in my experience, usually not contested, but maybe different for you), competing interpretations/reasonability stuff, and maybe reverse voting issue arguments if your opponent is Ian Stark.

 

As far as the speech itself, obviously slow down a bit so the judge can actually flow. Be really clear about what you're extending from the 2NC. If you want you can have a pre-written extension of the interpretation. I do all my topicality blocks in a very modular form, so I have a template that fills in a lot of my 1NC and 2NC structure for me, which makes it a lot easier to build off that structure in the 2NR.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then at the "voting issue level" you get fairness and education (in my experience, usually not contested, but maybe different for you), competing interpretations/reasonability stuff, and maybe reverse voting issue arguments if your opponent is Ian Stark.

 

You know me so well, Ryan - that said, it does make sense that the guy studying semiotics would have a bone to pick with the flippant interpretation of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As far as the speech itself, obviously slow down a bit so the judge can actually flow. Be really clear about what you're extending from the 2NC. If you want you can have a pre-written extension of the interpretation. I do all my topicality blocks in a very modular form, so I have a template that fills in a lot of my 1NC and 2NC structure for me, which makes it a lot easier to build off that structure in the 2NR.

Can I see a pre written extension? A sort of template would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I see a pre written extension? A sort of template would be helpful.

I don't do that for the 2NR, but this is what I use for the top of the 2NC.

 

Every topical Affirmative must [---], which excludes [---].

 

Definitional support-

[---]

 

They violate because [---] is [---].

 

The topical version of the Affirmative is [---] – it solves the content of the

Affirmative, but fixes the form.

 

Two net-benefits to our interpretation:

 

First, limits – they drastically expand the research burden – only a narrow

interpretation of [---] can set a functional limit on the topic because we’ll always be

able to read Negative generics.

 

Second, ground – predictable ground is key to preparing for the debate and clashing

with their arguments – restricting [---] to mean [---] guarantees we get [---]. That’s a

stable minimum for what arguments the Negative should get grounded in the topic

literature.

 

The terminal impacts are competitive equity and topic education – having a limited,

debatable topic produces in-depth knowledge which outweighs because limits are

only pedagogically valuable if they’re predictable, producing a fair game for the

purpose of knowledge-making.

 

 

 

 

-------

 

 

So if I'm preparing T-Education I'd fill it in with relevant arguments.

 

One other miscellaneous tip is that people will be like "you have ground--we link to states and federalism duh." You should argue it's about the quality of the ground as much as the quantity.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

luckily for you, this is the T argument i've mained this year -

 

 

2NR - Ikonen

 

 

Extend the interp and violation – That’s Ikonen 99 – Education is the learning that happens in classrooms – The aff doesn’t change that – They concede plan in a vacuum which means you only evaluate the fact that the plan <<<PLAN>>> – That’s not a change of how learning happens in classrooms. 

The TVA is <<<EXTEND TVA>>>, this argument checks any offense the aff has on both the standards and impact level. First, we prove they could have read a plan that meets our interpretation, solves their advantages, and involves discourse on the same subject as the aff. This takes out their limits and ground arguments. Second, under our interpretation there is potential to have virtually the same discussions of education <<<funding and/or regulation>>> they claim are key to fairness and education. That proves there’s a topical aff they could have read, but either chose not to so they could tilt the round in their favor, or were too lazy to find a better version of the aff. All their claims on fairness and education go away because they had the potential to achieve those, and if they didn’t it’s their own fault. The potential for the aff education is there, they ignored it. 

 

  

The aff extends the counter interpretation that education is <<<COUNTERINTERP>>> but this is bad because it allows nearly anything to be topical as long as the aff talks about schools and can be somehow related to schools. 

If you have time, elaborate on their interp bad, it’s not really a thing that can be blocked out but just take some time to criticize their interp as a piece of evidence if you come up with anything in round (no intent to define, tangential relationship to the topic, field context is wrong, etc.). If you can also come up with some crafty reason why they don’t even meet their interp that’s good. 

Standards 

Prefer our interpretation, first is limits: If we can’t reasonably limit, predict, and prepare for debates then we can’t make decent arguments in round, eliminating clash. Clash leads to critical thinking, without it, both sides of the debate lack in-round education, which is half the reason WHY we debate. Prefer our interpretation because we limit the resolution to a manageable degree, making neg prep possible. The aff interpretation under-limits by allowing anything about school, and potentially infinite affs, so long as they can prove association. This is bad because the aff can just do things like fund boilers, ban windows, mandate yoga, <<list more justified by their interp>>, making preparation, generating clash, and facilitating education on the neg impossible. 

 

Next, we say depth over breadth: a more finite resolution means debaters have to be more creative and think critically to find more topical affs. Depth and breadth aren’t exclusive, but being able to make specific negative arguments to generate clash and therefore education, should come first. There’s no brightline for a lack of breadth – some topics like surveillance are super small, yet there are still PLENTY of affs every yearTo prove we over limit they have to show two things, 1) We limit out a SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT of aff ground, and 2) that ground is VALUABLE – they’ll hold us to the same standards on the ground debate so hold them to these standards here 

Even if you buy their argument that breadth is preferable we can demonstrate we access it. Their claims that we would only end up debating a set of 3 or 4 affs in every round by the end of the season aren’t true, there are many affs that could meet our interpretation, <<<like STEM, Humanities, sex ed, AVID, and anything that changes a teaching style,>>>. 

 

Next is ground two warrants, A) The aff interpretation hurts negative ground by taking out things like <<<the States CP and Fed DA – the states don’t have the right over the aff which means we miss out>>>, and B) if we can’t predict an aff we can never have specific offense to read against it. On large topics like this one, neg ground loss has more value than aff ground loss. The ground the aff loses is non-topical affirmatives that we wouldn’t be able to prep for. Because of that fact, this aff ground doesn’t have any real educational value after the 1AC – in-round education has to be a two-way street. While this goes on we lose key neg strategies from an already short list, hurting fairness. Affs can talk about nearly anything, while negs would read the same generic arguments every round. This takes out their education claims. By having access to nearly any government action, the aff can encroach upon key neg disad and counter plan ground. Action regarding instruction, and disadvantages specific to the instruction hold much more weight than generic disads. The aff interpretation justifies taking these away, further hurting fairness in debates. 

 

<<<At best they’re extra-T, that’s a conceded internal link to limits, that’s bad because it allows for an infinite number of solvency mechanisms which explodes the resolution as long as it somehow results in a change in education>>> 

 

<<<They say lit checks abuse but just because we read some generic offcase arguments and maybe had SOME case evidence doesn’t mean that it was good enough evidence to reach the full potential of fairness and therefore education that this round could have had the potential to reach. We weren’t able to debate on the same level as the aff which prevented us from questioning the truth of the aff, and good, prepared debates outweigh shabby semi-prepped debates that force us to go for T.>>> 

 

 

 

<<<They say we limit out discussions of ethics – That’s not true <<<<<<the TVA solves, and>>>>>> reading those arguments as a CP solves, and affs exist under our interpretation which includes discussions of __________>>> 

 

 

<<<answer theirs>>>

 

 

Voting Issues 

The impacts to fairness and education in this round have been clear: 

 

On fairness, they have taken away core negative ground, limiting our strategy to weak generic arguments. Fairness is a voting issue because without it, debate becomes a coin toss over who gets which side, which makes debate meaningless, causing people to quit and the activity to fall apart. We come to debate for productive discourse, not to be talked at. 

 

On education, the aff interpretation hurts fairness, resulting in the round becoming a coin toss and arguments becoming meaningless, which in turn hurts education. Education is the most important issue in the round, without in round education debate becomes a pointless competition, winning rounds because you found something so mundane that the neg couldn’t prepare for is an empty win. Without the critical thinking that goes into winning a debate round that both teams are prepared for, the activity loses all meaning. If we can’t make good arguments, debate is reduced to two teams talking past each other. We’ve already proven that A) we’re stuck with negative positions with little educational value, and B) they justify affs with little educational value, both of which are solved by our interpretation 

FW 

Our analysis on standards shows their interpretation isn’t reasonable, which means that we still win under their framework, but you should prefer competing interpretations – it holds the aff to the resolution which is a prior question, and eliminates judge intervention which would take out the point of actually debating and turns the round into a decision dictated by the judge’s bias. If we’ve won the standards debate, we should win the round. The ballot doesn’t say vote for the team who affirms your bias, it says vote for the team who did the better job of debating, so vote neg. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain why your interpretation is the best and why they don't meet, every standard and voter you win is disad to their interpreatation and just go in depth why it is the best interp for the topic and why the standards and voters are really important

  • 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...