Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'speeches'.
Found 2 results
Okay, so I've been debating for quite a while and just recently, I both got on cross-x and the national circuit big-stick tournaments. I recently learned how to give a 1AR correctly (the 2AC + comparison - fluff; basically) and I've run into a large problem when reading: the 2NC, the 2AR, and especially the 2NR. I've lost many debates this season because I simply fail to contextualize arguments. My strategy is usually one-off case in the 2NC, which I either choose or the 1NR argument in the 2NR. I utilize a blocked out file with every answer imaginable which I then throw into a speech, separated into the Perm debate, link debate, impact debate, etc. This strategy used to work very well for me, before judges started wanting contextualization and refusing to flow things unless they fell down the flow with analysis. I read off a computer primarily, using my flows as an extra, and only read off of them for end-of-speech stuff (Ex. "They say TVA, I answered that above, it's impossible...") but I don't really use them for line-by-line. My blocks consisted of "blocky" overviews which I explained (sort of) later. The fact is, that this simply doesn't work in the 2NR. My question is, how do you as a negative debater, utilize the relationship between the flows and the computer, the line-by-line and pre-written blocks, to effectively give a speech in the 2NC and the 2NR. I know this varies greatly in terms of strategy and style, that's why I'm asking for a general understanding. Note: I already looked through the forums, not really sure where I could find this answered. Another Note: If you have any suggestions for practice speeches/ LBL drills as well, that would be cool.
When I was forming an answer to Alt doesn't solve for the K, I came to thinking, "Does this discourse doesn't solve argument apply to the 1AC?" Because the 1AC is engaging in discourse, so that must mean that the 1AC also does not solve. Is this right, or am I extending this beyond regular perceptions? Or is there something that says that philosophical discourse is ineffective and policy discourse, and passing of the 1AC, solves?