homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:39 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:55 am
Posts: 211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: VA
Hey guys, working on my briefs, and just wondering... what are some tips and tricks you have for the 2NR? Some people have suggested going for everything. Some have suggested just focusing on the on argument you think will win you the round. What have y'all found to be most effective?

_________________
NCFCA Region IX (FASD)

Reagan Bass/Justin Moffatt '12-'16


Retired.


Last edited by JustM.e on Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
JustM.e wrote:
Hey guys, working on my briefs, and just wondering... what are some tips and tricks you have for the 2NR. Some people have suggested going for everything. Some have suggested just focusing on the one argument you think will win you the round. What have y'all found to be most effective?

I'm not sure why "the" is italicized, but whatever. I always advise going for one or two arguments and framing them in a way that will win the round. Otherwise you will spread yourself out and the judge won't know how you won, or the aff will be able to tell a convincing story. One or two arguments will let you go deeper into the analysis and preempt the 2AR. I have found this true in front of both debate judges and lay/community judges.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:46 pm
Posts: 212
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Mars, obviously.
Ditto to Bryan. Trying to hit absolutely every point in a round with three community judges against HRC Reform last year killed my 2NR, losing me octafinals when I could have had a chance to kill it if I'd focused on my strongest solvency arguments. It is better, whether in the rebuttals or the constructives, to have a few really good arguments rather than two excellent and three average. In-depth, easily followed speeches convince judges.
Know what your key arguments are from the beginning of the round, hammer them, and use them as voters in the 2NR.
Don't spread the 1AR, because a good 1A can pick it all up. You've effectively spread yourself in that situation.

_________________
ShaynePC wrote:
Guys. John Bush III is coaching this club. In Greek, jonbush means SIGN UP NOW.

Join Speech and Debate USA
[Avatar photo credit]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:38 am
Posts: 206
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: If the little thingy say I'm online, then I am probably on my computer; if not, who knows? :-)
JustM.e wrote:
Hey guys, working on my briefs, and just wondering... what are some tips and tricks you have for the 2NR. Some people have suggested going for everything. Some have suggested just focusing on the one argument you think will win you the round. What have y'all found to be most effective?


I was the 2N for four years. :) Basically, you group and sell. Don't just pick one argument, because you can't read the judges mind to know which issue is your winning issue (as a judge, I have at times been going to vote negative, until the 2NR drops the point I was going to vote on). However, this is a rebuttal, so it should look significantly different than a constructive. This means less detail, more impact. Paint a picture for the judge of how terrible the world is going to look with the AFF plan. I usually had a maximum of three voting issues. It is a good idea to drop arguments that really have no impact on the round (e.g., some definitional arguments, inherency arguments with no impact, etc.)

IMO, the 2NR is possibly the most fun speech of the round because you get to be dramatic. It should be thematic and compelling.

Rebecca

_________________
The "Frazer" of "Frazer/Stivers" ; now an alumni. :D

Buy Ethos Sourcebook. Unmatched quality, ethics, and quantity. http://www.ethosdebate.com/

Go to an Ethos Camp this summer--one of the best investments for your debate career.

Praise the Lord, O my soul!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:15 pm 
Offline
THE Cookie Monster!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:43 am
Posts: 2599
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: where no one knows my name
Impact calculus. Your 2NR means nothing if you can't prove why your impacts outweigh any affirmative impacts left standing.

_________________
Brenna Bakke, Veritas CA
Adorable Speecher | gr8 debate timer | 08-09
Bakke/Ruscigno | TP <3 | 09-10
Bakke/Bakke | TP <3 | 10-11
Bakke/Van Ness | TP <3 | 11-13
Sad Brenna | LD ew | 13-14
PHC Student | wow such college deb8 | 14&beyond


You're not alone.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:54 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
I find that if you a neg philosophy that you can tie your DAs to, it'll make basically any neg speech flow. Also making your DAs their own voting issue also helps spread the impacts round so it makes it harder for the aff to refute in the last speech. :D


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
how was this threat revived

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 649
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
was literally about to ask Justin what he's still doing in debate XD.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:22 am
Posts: 49
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: lol no
Since this thread is back from the dead.. And this is kinda on topic.
Why do we (or rather, why are we supposed to when introduced into debate) introduce DAs in the 2nc as opposed to the 1nc? Is there some sort of strategic advantage of doing that way that I'm missing?
I've actually wondered this for a while.

_________________
.-.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 469
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
InfiniteUnderscores wrote:
Since this thread is back from the dead.. And this is kinda on topic.
Why do we (or rather, why are we supposed to when introduced into debate) introduce DAs in the 2nc as opposed to the 1nc? Is there some sort of strategic advantage of doing that way that I'm missing?
I've actually wondered this for a while.

Two main reasons:

1) Logical order of arguments: If the 1NC can kill the harms/advantages of the case, that sets the stage for the all of the DAs to come in the 2NC. Then, the 1NR can be spent both responding to the 2AC and weighing the supposed harms/advantages against the disadvantages.

2) Strategic advantage: DAs are usually the strongest arguments. Introducing DAs in the 2NC makes it so that the first response is given in the 1AR, as opposed to the 2AC. It is much easier for aff to respond to a DA in the 2AC than in the 1AR.

You don't need to feel locked into ordering your arguments in this way. It often is a very strong way to organize arguments, but you should still remain flexible. Different cases call for different approaches on negative.

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 am
Posts: 60
Home Schooled: Yes
marinadelayne wrote:
2) Strategic advantage: DAs are usually the strongest arguments. Introducing DAs in the 2NC makes it so that the first response is given in the 1AR, as opposed to the 2AC. It is much easier for aff to respond to a DA in the 2AC than in the 1AR.


I respectfully disagree. :) Coming from someone who has almost always been the 1A, it is much easier to respond to DAs in the 1AR than it is to respond to Significance/Solvency arguments. First-level disadvantage argumentation can normally be quickly de-linked by a well-prepared affirmative, or simply lumped and collectively outweighed. On-case refutation, on the other hand, requires in-depth analysis/details to respond adequately (because the burden is on the affirmative to prove their case and answer logical objections to it, whereas disadvantages are negative arguments, which means that negative has a greater burden in the minds of the judge to support their position). Meanwhile, until those arguments are addressed, no disadvantage can be outweighed because the case itself is unproven. While DAs have a stronger impact in most rounds, it is the on-case argumentation that typically requires the most complicated and time-consuming response.

If your DAs are truly the strongest arguments in round, my advice would be to present them in the 1NC so that the judge immediately has a reason to vote against the case (as opposed to on-case arguments, which normally aren't a reason to prefer negative). If you are well-prepared, those disadvantages can be easily extended past the 2AC's reponses in the 1NR, leaving the 1AR with complex, second-level response argumentation instead of the usual clump-delink-outweigh response structure. Meanwhile, the on-case refutation comes in the 2NC, leaving the 1AR with the difficult task of re-explaining and giving additional detail to the 1AC affirmative argumentation.

That said, different strategies work best for different teams and different cases. Split the negative can work well for teams who prefer it. Personally, I prefer shell-and-extend when possible, or Emory switch (split the negative, but with the DAs and Solvency in the 1NC as opposed to the 2NC).

_________________
Connor T. Daniels | Hillsdale College '21
NCFCA Region VIII, UADC
2014-2015|Cash/Daniels
2015-2016|Cash/Daniels
2016-2017|Daniels/Green
COG Author

"Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth." ~ Teiresias (in Oedipus Rex)


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 469
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
ConnorDaniels wrote:
marinadelayne wrote:
2) Strategic advantage: DAs are usually the strongest arguments. Introducing DAs in the 2NC makes it so that the first response is given in the 1AR, as opposed to the 2AC. It is much easier for aff to respond to a DA in the 2AC than in the 1AR.


I respectfully disagree. :) Coming from someone who has almost always been the 1A, it is much easier to respond to DAs in the 1AR than it is to respond to Significance/Solvency arguments. First-level disadvantage argumentation can normally be quickly de-linked by a well-prepared affirmative, or simply lumped and collectively outweighed. On-case refutation, on the other hand, requires in-depth analysis/details to respond adequately (because the burden is on the affirmative to prove their case and answer logical objections to it, whereas disadvantages are negative arguments, which means that negative has a greater burden in the minds of the judge to support their position). Meanwhile, until those arguments are addressed, no disadvantage can be outweighed because the case itself is unproven. While DAs have a stronger impact in most rounds, it is the on-case argumentation that typically requires the most complicated and time-consuming response.
That can certainly be true in some cases. However, as the 1A, I found that the main reason it was harder to respond to DAs in the 1AR was because there was less time to read evidence. We usually compensated for the lack of time by spiking the DAs with evidence in the 2AC. We were always overjoyed when the negative team would run the DAs in the 1NC, as it made our job a lot easier. :P

Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if your case didn't rely heavily on evidence. But we typically ran cases for which there was a lot of evidence on both sides, which meant that we would have a lot of evidence thrown at us and needed to respond in the same manner.

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 am
Posts: 60
Home Schooled: Yes
marinadelayne wrote:
ConnorDaniels wrote:
marinadelayne wrote:
2) Strategic advantage: DAs are usually the strongest arguments. Introducing DAs in the 2NC makes it so that the first response is given in the 1AR, as opposed to the 2AC. It is much easier for aff to respond to a DA in the 2AC than in the 1AR.


I respectfully disagree. :) Coming from someone who has almost always been the 1A, it is much easier to respond to DAs in the 1AR than it is to respond to Significance/Solvency arguments. First-level disadvantage argumentation can normally be quickly de-linked by a well-prepared affirmative, or simply lumped and collectively outweighed. On-case refutation, on the other hand, requires in-depth analysis/details to respond adequately (because the burden is on the affirmative to prove their case and answer logical objections to it, whereas disadvantages are negative arguments, which means that negative has a greater burden in the minds of the judge to support their position). Meanwhile, until those arguments are addressed, no disadvantage can be outweighed because the case itself is unproven. While DAs have a stronger impact in most rounds, it is the on-case argumentation that typically requires the most complicated and time-consuming response.
That can certainly be true in some cases. However, as the 1A, I found that the main reason it was harder to respond to DAs in the 1AR was because there was less time to read evidence. We usually compensated for the lack of time by spiking the DAs with evidence in the 2AC. We were always overjoyed when the negative team would run the DAs in the 1NC, as it made our job a lot easier. :P

Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if your case didn't rely heavily on evidence. But we typically ran cases for which there was a lot of evidence on both sides, which meant that we would have a lot of evidence thrown at us and needed to respond in the same manner.


I can go along with that; it will vary based on the case. For what it's worth, the cases I have run have had Disadvantages that were fairly easy to respond to concisely. Normally the difference between the affirmative and negative position could be tied back to a philosophy about how U.S. policy should work, and we could reference that value to de-link the disadvantage and/or outweigh. Instead of disagreeing with the details of their arguments, we could simply point out the value disagreement and win that level of argumentation. Normally one card, or maybe two would suffice for all of the disadvantages. Meanwhile, the on-case argumentation normally required several points of explanation and additional detail (generally, only one or two cards were quoted directly, but we referenced a lot of statistics and facts about the status quo) and so that was more time-consuming in our situation.

I feel like more of the cases I have seen tend to have had the same types of responses as our cases did (at least last year), but I could be wrong about that.

_________________
Connor T. Daniels | Hillsdale College '21
NCFCA Region VIII, UADC
2014-2015|Cash/Daniels
2015-2016|Cash/Daniels
2016-2017|Daniels/Green
COG Author

"Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth." ~ Teiresias (in Oedipus Rex)


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1391
Home Schooled: Yes
You know, I've never understood why this is, but for me DAs never really were what won the rounds. They always should have won rounds in theory, but the judges didn't seem to care about them that much no matter how much I'd emphasize them. The strategy that I used my last year was just to hammer sig and solvency so much that the Aff's case looked completely ridiculous, and then I'd just briefly mention all the unresponded DAs at the end. Maybe this was just my style, but that's always what seemed to win the most rounds.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: *THE* 2NR
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:06 pm 
Offline
Kenya debate as good as me?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 1926
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In your head.
InfiniteUnderscores wrote:
Since this thread is back from the dead.. And this is kinda on topic.
Why do we (or rather, why are we supposed to when introduced into debate) introduce DAs in the 2nc as opposed to the 1nc? Is there some sort of strategic advantage of doing that way that I'm missing?
I've actually wondered this for a while.

It's probably better not to do things this way. The strongest negative approach when attacking most cases is to shell and extend. In other words, the first negative goes over the whole range of argumentation the negative team is attempting to pull through, the 2NC deepens analysis and adds additional warrants/impacts to the argumentation (and depending on the situation may address either implicitly or explicitly claims of the 2AC) and then the 1NR does the bulk of refuting the 2AC.

Also important is that you not try to spread yourself out on too many arguments. Pick a few positions that will really win the round, and then develop them in-depth as opposed to just trying to get more points on paper. You'll find if you do this that things you might previously have considered to be independent arguments actually are more effective as subpoints of one sort or another within a broader argument.

Every round is different. You have to figure out whether this is going to work based on the team you are debating, what case you are attempting to defeat, and the strengths/weaknesses of your partnership. In general, though, I found this very effective, and the teams I respect the most have tended to debate using some variance of this strategy.

As an aside, I find debating this way to be much more fun than spreading...

_________________
I desire to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

SDG.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited