How do I go for T in the 2NR and when?

[Boggs97orBust 0]

I have had a few rounds this season where the judge wished I went for T in the 2NR. I was wondering if y'all had any suggestions as to what to say for the full 5 minutes and when is T the most viable option?

I've seen and responded to T 2NRs (I'm double twos) as the affirmative, but I am still unsure as how to structure my own 2NR of straight T. This is the shell format we currently use during the block:

1.  Interpretation
2. Violation
3. AT Counter Interps
4. Standards
   - Prefer legal precision
   - Limits
   - Predictability
   - Ground
5. No Reasonability
6. Voters
   - Fairness
   - Education

I don't want to sound like a broken record player by rereading the shell, but I know that some parts of it has to be extended. Are there specific standards I should prioritize over others? Can I kick out of one voter and just go for Fairness or Education? We're a small school on the circuit and I often use that as why limits are K2 small schools not dropping out, but I'm not sure as to how to impact out T further.

If anyone has a 2NR T overview from a previous topic that they'd be willing to share, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

[ICoastalKingdom 6]

You should have a TVA (Topical Version of the Aff) and a caselist in a good 2nr.

TVA shows there's no offense on the standards debate because the aff could have been ran in another way while still addressing the same core case. An example would be if the aff was "reduce caps for Ugandan refugees", the 2NR might say "That's not T - Substantial, a topical version of the plan text would be to reduce caps for ALL refugees, and the aff can focus on Ugandan ones specifically if it wants".

A caselist is just a list of the affs that could be run through your interp. It shows that you don't overlimit or kill core aff ground.

[HunterJordan 6]

Building off of what Coastal was saying, TVA is the best way to go/case list bolsters it.

- Maybe read some horrendous limits impact cards (Rowland 84 is one of these that specifically implicates the small school research burden) in the 2NC as linear impacts to topicality.

- Prioritize the standards that are common. Don't go for framer's intent just b/c they dropped it.

- Keep it interesting, maybe add some emotion (passion is often nonexistent in "TNR" speeches.

- Really analyze the world of the aff's interps/topical explosion; paint a picture of a world with outrageous affs, with their aff as a gateway of sorts.

- It's totally ok to end a TNR before the whole 5 minutes, especially if you're rambling or repetitive, shifts the pressure back onto the aff. 

[TheSnowball 1433]

7 hours ago, HunterJordan said:

maybe add some emotion

Every day... thousands of debaters across the country struggle to access this beautiful activity that we all know and love... because of the select few that decide to ruin it... with plans that aren't substantial. You, judge, have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many young scholars. All you have to do? Sign your ballot for the Negative.

[NickDB8 508]

17 hours ago, TheSnowball said:

Every day... thousands of debaters across the country struggle to access this beautiful activity that we all know and love... because of the select few that decide to ruin it... with plans that aren't substantial. You, judge, have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many young scholars. All you have to do? Sign your ballot for the Negative.

This definitely read like an ASPCA commercial.

For 32 cents a day, you can end the abuse that has happened in this debate. Donate now, and we'll include a free t shirt and a one month subscription to our magazine

[Crispy 21]

For 2NRs on T, I usually go for a overview and then impact analysis. This is where I spend at least 2-3 minutes fleshing out the importance of fairness and education within the debate community with some DAs to their interp. 

Afterwards, I'll just answer to any line-by-line they put up, and that's when I just use the answers from the blocks.