Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Boggs97orBust

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My partner and I typically read Ballot Commodification K (the AFF uses the suffering of others for the ballot which is bad), FW, and a TVA against K affs when they're non-topical.
  2. 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: Interpretation Violation AT Counter Interps Standards - Prefer legal precision - Limits - Predictability - Ground No Reasonability 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!
  • Create New...