homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:12 pm
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  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: AJACs
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
I'm looking for advice, tips, etc. for running AJACs, specifically for ones with competitive/contradictory plans. What's the best way to respond to neg saying "you can't argue that we should do 2 contradictory things"?

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: AJACs
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:55 am
Posts: 211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: VA
I heard you were considering the voting age thing. Right? (Both raise/lower)

I love the idea of AJACs from a "game" perspective.

Essentially, as you know, you're advocating the resolution, not the plan. You have to stress that a lot. I don't know how easy that's gonna be to win, though. You have a lot of parent judges and alums who will know that that's kind of a "cheap shot" ;) if you will. And the abusiveness arguments "they can't do that because it's not fair" will resonate a lot more than they probably should.

Have you considered running two non-contradictory plans? It would ruin the effect of forcing the Neg to defend the status quo and just the status quo... but it could be interesting as well.

_________________
NCFCA Region IX (FASD)

Reagan Bass/Justin Moffatt '12-'16


Retired.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:32 am 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Run what makes sense to judges.

or #yolo and do this.

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Thanks for the thoughts, Justin. I'm still trying to think through this, so for the sake of exploring how the argumentation might go, I would probably say that it's not any more unfair since aff isn't taking away any negative ground. So basically, as long as the negative can argue everything they should be able to argue (topical counterplans obviously excluded from a res-centrism perspective), it's not unfair. And they can, because the aff isn't advocating any part of the SQ. Does that make sense?

Also I see that you can also do it from a parametrics framework which is interesting, thanks for the tip Razi.

Yeah we're thinking of running two non-competitive plans (or potentially two less-obviously-competitive plans, like NPV along with PR in the EC). I'd definitely be a less controversial option, which is a good and bad thing haha.

Forerunner wrote:
Run what makes sense to judges.

Implying that this doesn't? ;) lol

Forerunner wrote:
#yolo

That's basically the plan :P

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
kingwill wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts, Justin. I'm still trying to think through this, so for the sake of exploring how the argumentation might go, I would probably say that it's not any more unfair since aff isn't taking away any negative ground. So basically, as long as the negative can argue everything they should be able to argue (topical counterplans obviously excluded from a res-centrism perspective), it's not unfair. And they can, because the aff isn't advocating any part of the SQ. Does that make sense?

You might do some research on defenses for conditional affirmatives--basically the same thing as AJAC. Actually, I've never even heard the term AJAC outside the NCFCA. They're not uncommon in other leagues, though, so you might do some quick googling before you reinvent the wheel.

Conditional affs, even when defended from the res-centric viewpoint, don't necessarily preclude counterplans. The neg can still claim parametrics, they just have to say the res became two different points (plans) within the resolution, as opposed to the more common one point. To use the old analogy, if the entire res is a big circle, a single aff plan is one small circle inside that. The rest of the big circle becomes neg ground. An AJAC is just two small circles.

_________________
-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: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Masked Midnight wrote:
Holt G/Holt S are running one of these here in Region 8 and have been 5-1 at every qualifier they've attended. I know that the case doesn't do well in outrounds, but they definitely are defend-able.


Granted the Holts aren't running three contradictory plans. We hit them in Octafinals and they ran the three pronged case: Voter ID, Closed Primaries, and National Primary Day. We alluded to voter ID and hit National Primary Day hard, arguing that if any of the Affirmative team's plan(s) fell, then the Neg should win the round. It appears to me that running multiple cases just makes you that much more of a target. The Negative team only has to pick the one that they feel most confident in, and it's almost like asking the negative team to pick what case they want to hit. However, if you can convince the judge that if the Affirmative team only has to win 1 Aff, even if the Neg refutes 2 others, then you can do fairly well with it--but some judges won't buy that.

As far as the neg. arguing that "you can't argue that we should do 2 contradictory things" it really depends on what contradictory plans you were doing. If you can outline a distinction between them then it seems perfectly acceptable. For instance, if you are saying that we should lower the voting age for Homeschoolers but raise it for Publicschoolers, then that would be an acceptable case because you can draw the line on the basis of intelligence or core values (It would be an awesome case too :lol: ).

_________________
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: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
As far as the neg. arguing that "you can't argue that we should do 2 contradictory things" it really depends on what contradictory plans you were doing. If you can outline a distinction between them then it seems perfectly acceptable. For instance, if you are saying that we should lower the voting age for Homeschoolers but raise it for Publicschoolers, then that would be an acceptable case because you can draw the line on the basis of intelligence or core values (It would be an awesome case too :lol: ).

In that example the "two" plans (really just one plan) isn't contradictory. Its just one plan that treats people differently.
If you ran an AJAC, one plan being "institute voter ID," the other being "ban all voter ID laws and override state laws," you might get some abuse arguments. Personally, I wouldn't mind an aff running those together, as long as they could defend it and only had one in the rebuttals....judges like me is why the neg should have politics generics that would link to both plans.

_________________
-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: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
I'm guessing the best speech to dump all but one case would be the 1AR?

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: AJACs
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
kingwill wrote:
I'm guessing the best speech to dump all but one case would be the 1AR?

Yep. If you kick an aff in the 2AR that's both pretty abusive and doesn't give you enough time to spin the story properly. If you kick one in the 2AC it's too early and the neg has the whole block to unload on what, at that point, will be a fairly undeveloped case, since it has only had about 4 minutes of both constructives. In the 1AR, you waste (presumably) half the neg's block and have the strategic option of only going for the aff they undercovered.

The trick is to not tip your hand in the 2AC and not give away which aff you want to go for. On the other hand, you could, say, split the minutes in the 2AC 3/5 or even 2/6 to try to get the neg to go for the one you spend more time with, then go for the one you barely touched. I'd be careful with that, though, since some community judges and virtually all parents would probably think that kind of shady. My own opinion is that it's the neg's fault for not seeing the strategy, but then I usually squirrel on panels in the NCFCA

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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