homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:37 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  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:02 am 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
I'm the 1NC. We usually split the neg, because I can't cover all of my main points well enough in one speech and I haven't always figured out what my main points will be either.

At this past tournament I thought of a somewhat new and improved split neg structure. Typically, people run T, Inherency, and Sig in the 1N, with DAs and Solvency in the 2N. However, I think it might be a better idea to run solvency/DAs in the first speech, with inherency/significance in the second. Here's how I think it would work.

1AC - Aff case. Judge sort of understands, but has doubts on some issues.
1NC - Neg runs T, Solv, and DAs. Judge thinks aff plan sounds like a pretty bad idea.
2AC - Aff defends and attempts to rebuild case. Judge ends up believing that aff case may be a good idea.
2NC - Neg brings up Negative advantages and mitigates Aff harms. Judge thinks aff plan is not really needed.
1NR - Neg refutes DA/Solv/T responses and impacts. Judge ends up thinking Aff case is pretty stupid.
1AR - Aff flies through arguments attempting to refute everything and likely drops some things. Judge buys a few responses but remains in favor of Neg
2NR - Neg brings up powerful voting issues, making sure to focus on drops. Judge is sold.
2AR - Aff, still desperately attempting to refute arguments, speaks very fast and doesn't get to talk about Aff case until the last thirty seconds. Judge ends the round believing that the Neg arguments are legit and still doesn't quite understand the justifications for the Aff case.

I think this would be a pretty good strategy because the Aff would be put on the defensive the whole time. The Inherency/significance arguments would hold more weight because they would not be immediately refuted by Aff. The DAs/Solv would also be stronger because they would be the main focus of two speeches.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:04 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
That's called an emory switch.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:15 am
Posts: 941
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In the eye of the storm.
I am a huge fan of the Emory Switch when it is the right situation. It allows the DA's and the solvency to be fleshed out longer. Often times DA's and solvency is what wins the round. The longer they have to develop, the better they become.

_________________
Jonathan Hixson - Arx Axiom Debate Society
WMD Extemp Club
Ethos Publications, LLC


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:35 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
I'm one of those people who think shell-and-extend is overrated (that is, it works great for some cases but not so great for others). The Emory Switch has some strategic advantages, but ultimately victory depends more on presentation and how you handle rebuttals, so I don't recommend worrying too much about it unless everything else is pretty solid. If you have a DA ready to go, it might be better to bring it up in the 1NC; but if you're still developing it, take your time. It's better to run it right than run it early.

One relatively undiscussed advantage is that the 2N has more time to analyze the Aff and find on-case weaknesses. If he makes good use of his time, he has a full 22 minutes to study the 1AC copy before he has to say anything.

I debated this way quite a lot back when I debated with Alex, and we did very well with it, but we did it more for personal reasons than strategic reasons (I just really liked running DAs, and he liked case analysis.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Aff provides their offense in their first speech and their defense in their second speech, so it makes sense for neg to do the same. Otherwise, neg introduces themselves as primarily "not losing" and secondarily "winning".

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
Hyper Static Union wrote:
That's called an emory switch.

This strategy exists already; it's called...that.

Realize though that what you're intentionally trying to do is win the round based by forcing aff to undersell themselves, which isn't equal competition. Yes, this is, to some degree, inevitable, but should we be trying to do that intentionally, or trying to win by out-debating them, instead of out-talking them?

Think about it.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:22 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
willmalson wrote:
Realize though that what you're intentionally trying to do is win the round based by forcing aff to undersell themselves, which isn't equal competition. Yes, this is, to some degree, inevitable, but should we be trying to do that intentionally, or trying to win by out-debating them, instead of out-talking them?
Persuasion involves a great deal of framing and structural nuances. You phrase your arguments in the way that is most favorable to you, so why not structure your speeches in the way that is most favorable to you?

Still, it's not something I recommend less-experienced debaters focus on. There's some pretty spiffy time tricks and organizational tactics out there, but it's very easy to lose sight of the real stuff if you focus on them. Get the logic and argumentation down before you even touch the more advanced flow-management techniques. Advanced debaters? Psh, have fun. You deserve it. :)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:27 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
willmalson wrote:
Realize though that what you're intentionally trying to do is win the round based by forcing aff to undersell themselves, which isn't equal competition. Yes, this is, to some degree, inevitable, but should we be trying to do that intentionally, or trying to win by out-debating them, instead of out-talking them?

I had thought about that. However, I think this strategy is more beneficial to debate than a standard split neg because it puts the strongest arguments out there at the beginning and allows offensive arguments to be the focus of three Neg speeches. It also allows Neg more time to carefully critique the 1AC and find problems in it.

You probably ask "why not shell and extend?" I have found it impractical to use because...
1. It's difficult to actually use because you have to know every argument that you want to use in the round by the end of the 1AC. (Which doesn't work if you hit a vague case, a squirrel, or a case against which you have many arguments)
2. It's difficult to set up all of your main arguments in one speech such that the Aff actually has enough to respond to.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:15 am
Posts: 941
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In the eye of the storm.
Justin Stacy wrote:
willmalson wrote:
You probably ask "why not shell and extend?" I have found it impractical to use because...
1. It's difficult to actually use because you have to know every argument that you want to use in the round by the end of the 1AC. (Which doesn't work if you hit a vague case, a squirrel, or a case against which you have many arguments)
2. It's difficult to set up all of your main arguments in one speech such that the Aff actually has enough to respond to.


1. Best way to fix this, prep before the tournament for each case. If you hit a squirrel you should have you random da's and solvency takeouts already to go so you can use them.
2. The entire purpose of Shell and Extending is not to set up your complete argument. You are literally just throwing out your arguments. Leave the perfecting the 2NC and 1NR.

_________________
Jonathan Hixson - Arx Axiom Debate Society
WMD Extemp Club
Ethos Publications, LLC


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
conservativesrock wrote:
1. Best way to fix this, prep before the tournament for each case. If you hit a squirrel you should have you random da's and solvency takeouts already to go so you can use them.

It's a double-bind for me. If I prep, I have lots of strong arguments. If I don't prep, I'm not sure which arguments are going to be strong.
conservativesrock wrote:
2. The entire purpose of Shell and Extending is not to set up your complete argument. You are literally just throwing out your arguments. Leave the perfecting the 2NC and 1NR.

I think that is more harmful for debate. You essentially waste your first speech telling everyone what you'll be doing in the negative block. The entire speech goes to waste when you could be making solid arguments.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:15 am
Posts: 941
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In the eye of the storm.
Justin Stacy wrote:
I think that is more harmful for debate. You essentially waste your first speech telling everyone what you'll be doing in the negative block. The entire speech goes to waste when you could be making solid arguments.


Really? I think shelling is an extremely useful way to set up your arguments. The whole idea behind it is that you overwhelm the affirmative after a couple of speeches. I think the thing to remember with shelling is that the arguments that are run, should be solid ones so that they are not completely obliterated in the 2AC.

_________________
Jonathan Hixson - Arx Axiom Debate Society
WMD Extemp Club
Ethos Publications, LLC


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
If only lay out the "shell" of your arguments in the first speech, then the 2AC will be able to obliterate them. Then you are on the defensive through the 2NC, on the offensive through the 1NR, and on the defensive again through the 2NR.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 588
Home Schooled: Yes
^Keep in mind that the 2AC has the same amount of time as the 1NC. He'll have to move just as fast as you.

_________________
STRATFOR wrote:
Unlike the normal situation in civilized societies, there is no clear distinction in Russia between criminal enterprises and the government.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:59 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Justin Stacy wrote:
If only lay out the "shell" of your arguments in the first speech, then the 2AC will be able to obliterate them. Then you are on the defensive through the 2NC, on the offensive through the 1NR, and on the defensive again through the 2NR.
The idea of shell and extend is not to lay out a huge number of arguments, but to lay out the core foundations of your arguments that you will then expand into multiple points later. It's categorical, not sequential. Each impact scenario isn't a separate argument you have to raise in the 1NC; they branch off of the core ideas (like "this plan raises taxes") that you raise in the 1NC.

i.e.:

"Hi, I'm the 1NC. Here are five different ways this will hurt the economy because of X. We'll sort of repeat these a bunch later."
vs.
"Hi, I'm the 1NC. This plan will hurt the economy because of X. We'll give you five specific scenarios later."

This is why I think shell-and-extend works for some rounds, but not others. If you have a few "big" arguments with lots of extensions, it works great; but if you have a lot of scattered points, it doesn't work so well. You might prefer to prep one way or the other, but it's never going to work out exactly the same way in every round.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
MSD wrote:
willmalson wrote:
Realize though that what you're intentionally trying to do is win the round based by forcing aff to undersell themselves, which isn't equal competition. Yes, this is, to some degree, inevitable, but should we be trying to do that intentionally, or trying to win by out-debating them, instead of out-talking them?
Persuasion involves a great deal of framing and structural nuances. You phrase your arguments in the way that is most favorable to you, so why not structure your speeches in the way that is most favorable to you?

You're making an analogy where there isn't one.
You're essentially saying that we should present our speeches in a way that the judge will understand and like, and it's okay if the other team has absolutely no idea what's going on. That's not sportsmanlike, and it's not educational.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
I find S&E to be less educational. I've said this in past threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

1NC: Lay out your major areas of attack. But in practice, every S&E I've seen involves very little actual argumentation. Just a whole bunch of statements.
2AC: We get up and basically reaffirm our 1AC points because there hasn't been any major clash since we still have presented more depth than the NEG up to this point. People say that it will be as rushed as the 1NC, but in my experience, when you already have a full evidence-based 1AC on the table, the AFF ends up saying "If you look back at the 1AC..." ad nauseam.
2NC: Starts to elaborate on points but now also has to refute stuff in the 2AR. (Ends up being repetitive)
1NC: Since there's not that many points, starts to repeat. This is what happens in practice in my view.
1AR: has 4 issues to deal with and has heard them since speech 1 - just continues to repeat what was said in 2AR and adds a bit more.
2NR: Repeats the 1NC speech with refutation.
2AR: Repeats the 1AC but specific to the 2N points.

I have found it predictable and repetitive. I've found that in general, it also lessens clash. My opinion is that while veteran debaters can pull it off and even make it incredible, S&E is a viable option - not a modus operandi. It's like carrying a dagger. It's not the weapon of choice - except in certain situations. You don't pull it out all the time. You don't throw it away. It's a tool in the toolbox. In general, it is not a tool that novice debaters are able to use properly.

I think the Emory switch is great. I use a version of it ALL the time.

I'm not sure I understand what willmalson is saying. Are you saying that by going after DAs and stuff first, you're making it too hard for the other team?? If debating more effectively makes it harder for the AFF, I don't see the issue here. My main issue with an emory switch is that I think topicality and Kritiks are a priori and should be brought up in the 1NC. But why not have your partner use the time given to him to really come up with genius sig points???

I AM saying that we should present our speeches in a way that the judge will understand and like. I don't think it matters whether the other team understands or not. If the judge does, then the other team should as well. In the real world, suppose you're in a singing competition. You know the judge listens to country music. Just because your opponent is a rocker, doesn't mean you choose a neutral genre to make it fair. You choose what works for you and what your judge likes. I see nothing unsportsmanlike about this.

As for educational purposes, the purpose of NCFCA competitive debate is primarily to educate judges. To communicate with them, to teach them about an issue, and to convince them about a position. If the other team doesn't educate the judge, that's their fault. That's why you face the judge in CX, not each other. I know there are other reasons, but my point is that if you present a strategic and well-thought out case for a position, and the judge understands and agrees, it's on the other team to refute it.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Hyper Static Union wrote:
That's called an emory switch.

arx did this to perfection. they'd either emory switch or they'd just shell and extend the solvency and da's from the 1n. it was beautiful.

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
willmalson wrote:
You're essentially saying that we should present our speeches in a way that the judge will understand and like, and it's okay if the other team has absolutely no idea what's going on. That's not sportsmanlike, and it's not educational.
"Is this unsportsmanlike?" and "is this structured to benefit me?" are entirely separate questions. Working the structure to your advantage isn't automatically unfair to the other team, and they're perfectly free to try to do the same back to you. It can be unfair, but you have to prove sportsmanship on a case-by-case basis.

(Proof by negation: assume that this is not true.

Premise 1: Competitive organization is always unsportsmanlike.
Premise 2: Any attempt to organize your arguments in an eloquent way is competitive organization, because you're trying to make it difficult for the other team (by having a powerful, concise presentation.)
Conclusion: Any organization is unsportsmanlike. We should just spout whatever comes to our mind.

That's clearly ridiculous. Organizing your speeches to benefit you isn't always unsportsmanlike.)


There clearly are unsportsmanlike ways to handle structure, like spreading against novices who can barely flow. But something like the Emory Switch, which just gives you a slight edge (that can be countered if the Aff knows their stuff) is hardly unsportsmanlike. It's just good tactics, like getting strategic concessions in CX so you don't have to prove them independently later.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I honestly can't believe the discussion is centering on "educationalness" of certain strategies of ORGANIZATION. Really??? Stop telling me what to do, lol.

In the real world, you organize your content differently depending on what your content is. Surprising your audience for effect (and then they get it at the aha moment), having a straightforward organization, doing weird stuff, doing normal stuff -- you do all of it when presenting in life. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Debate is a great place to test it out... and find which content arranges which ways better...

And in real life you have to listen to your opponents and morph with the weird things they do. Nobody fits in a tidy structure you'd like them to.

It's not engineering, it's debate.

sakes

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:33 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
It's not engineering, it's debate.
Interesting that you would mention that, as I've thought for years now that debate is like engineering in the sense of designing a system with a specific goal in mind. That especially applies to organization, since there are several concerns including standardization, optimization of argument effectiveness based on attention budgeted to different points, etc.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

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