Jump to content
OwenK

Links (www.) to evidence in 1nr

Recommended Posts

can I have links to sites that say whether or not new evidence in the 1nr is good/bad? Thank you

 

btw attached is an evidence vio card that I thought would be helpful to the community

Evidence Vio card.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you honestly need to do is make analytical claims to prove that new arguments in the 1NR are good/bad.

Also, evidence is different from arguments. Reading new cards is totally legit as long as it's an extension of an existing argument. If it's some totally new case answers in the 1NR, then it's probably abusive. Just read whatever new arguments you want in the 2NC, CX checks abuse anyways.

http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=802.5;wap2 has some cool stuff too

Edited by HyperRhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HyperRhizome said:

All you honestly need to do is make analytical claims to prove that new arguments in the 1NR are good/bad.

Also, evidence is different from arguments. Reading new cards is totally legit as long as it's an extension of an existing argument. If it's some totally new case answers in the 1NR, then it's probably abusive. Just read whatever new arguments you want in the 2NC, CX checks abuse anyways.

http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=802.5;wap2 has some cool stuff too

thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can obviously read new evidence in the 1NR. Don't like read a whole new offcase, but you can certainly expand your arguments with new evidence. You can probably read new case answers in the 1NR too, but it's better to do it in the 2NC because it gives the 1AR the 2NC CX to prep answers and clarify if there are misunderstandings. You don't need to read evidence to make a violation claim, the only reason you might need to read evidence is so the judge knows "it's in the rules that you reject the team." You shouldn't make theory arguments about evidence violations one of your main strategies, as this is a type of weak debating that seeks to avoid clash when you know you're losing, but if the violation is egregious then it's probably appropriate to bring it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×