And against some cases.... ::ahemJVAahem:: it doesn't work as well as you might think it would...
Why is that?
Daniel and I experienced this twice at the tourny the other day. We were like: "Oh NOEZ!!! Bollinger/Martin and Rentschler/Schirmer and doing S&E
". And then we were like: "Uuuuhhh.
The reason it doesn't work as well IMO is because no matter how much you shell in the 1N, it's really easy for the 2A to address it. That's just how JVA and the args against it work. Then, when the 2NC and 1NR try to extend.......they aren't really extending anything. Most of the arguments have already been addressed, and the few that will remain debateable throughout the round are really easy for the 1AR to group and.....destroy. I thought I would be loaded in both my 1ARs. They were actually easier than when the other team split the neg. If you don't want to take it from me, that's fine
S&E is awesome. It allows debaters to get into the third and sometimes even the fourth line of argumentation. It often brings more depth and clash to the round, which really makes debate much more fun.
Oh yeah, certianly. But if your initial "shell" (the 1N) is crappy, then you're pretty much screwed. I find that I must take some time to prep the shell in order to prevent it from being "crappy". I'm sure experience will help deal with that as well...
The biggest consequence I see is more preparation is needed to execute a clean shell and extension. But if you do it right, it's an absolutely beautiful sight.
This is true.
And I must now say something in regards to the first part of this post: The JVA rounds in which S&E are used are certainly more interesting and generally....better. As Reagan said, you get to go into 3rd and 4th-line responses. I'm just making the point that while S&E usually puts more pressure on the affirmative team, it has thus far not been the case for my JVA case.
I beg to differ.
See above. I haz warrantz.