homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:27 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




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:22 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
thehomeschooler wrote:
Drew wrote:
She's talking about spreading.

Which...is what we do when we split the neg. Whether with arguments, evidence, or analysis.
Drew wrote:
And I can generally preempt every argument in my 2AC even if the other team splits anyways.

How? I seriously doubt it. Especially since I have a 1NR.



1. Spreading is lame.

2. I know the arguments the other team is going to run, so I can generally spike them by saying "this [insert justification/evidence/analysis/impact] deals with [insert argument], so if the other team attempts to bring this argument up in following speeches, refer back to my speech." Or something along those lines. And if not, Katie can generally clump and dump pretty well.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 279
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: the edge of glory
thehomeschooler wrote:
Drew wrote:
She's talking about spreading.

Which...is what we do when we split the neg. Whether with arguments, evidence, or analysis.


it seems to me that the whole point of spreading is based on the hope that the 1A will drop something in her 1AR which does not provide good clash where both teams have a good opportunity to respond to all the args and therefore an educational experience, and I think it can come across as rude and annoying as well.

Drew wrote:
Katie can generally clump and dump pretty well.


well thank you =]

_________________
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.


-J.R.R. Tolkien


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:11 pm
Posts: 151
Home Schooled: Yes
I think Katie and Drew's main point here is that it's a little lame (I had a hard time finding the right word, so I'll just settle with lame) for a negative team to win because they ran 19 stupid arguments, and the aff only had time to address 18. So 2NR comes up and says "they dropped the argument about how they haven't PROVEN that Russia likes money" (or something equally absurd.....anybody running tons of arguments is bound to have some dumb ones, simply because smart arguments take time to develop).

Immigration year, my partner and I spread like crazy and I was a huge fan of it. We ran totally dumb, contradictory, pointless arguments, but we normally had at least 20 arguments on the flow (it's amazing how much stupidity you can fit into 16 minutes if you put your mind to it). My 2NR always consisted of the arguments that the 1AR had not addressed. Since our arguments were so weak and shallow, I had a hard time finding a response to anything the aff said, so unless it was a real winner, I'd pretty much stick with dropped arguments. Did it work? yes. We won the vast majority of our negs (I don't remember the exact numbers, but I do know that we were undefeated on neg two tournaments in a row...including neg out-rounds). But those wins meant absolutely nothing to us, because we really hadn't done anything to deserve them. We won the round, not on what we had done, but on what the aff hadn't done.

India year, Lydia and I did shell/extend (which literally required a 180 in my thinking). It worked as well, and I found out that I enjoyed that style of debating so much more. Not only did I learn a whole lot more about our arguments, but we enjoyed the 'team approach' vs the "these are your arguments, and these are mine" approach that spreading calls for. I felt good about our neg wins, because I had to work harder and smarter for them, instead of sitting back during the 1AR and watching to see what arguments went unaddressed. Personally, I thought it was more fun, too.

Shell/extend requires the negative to work harder to pull out a win, because their arguments need to be strong, well-defended, and smart because they're going to need to hold up to an aff's response. They can't be a simple one-liner that would never hold up if the aff actually got time to address them. Aff hits them in round and realizes that they need to make their case stronger. Neg then responds by making their arguments stronger, which the aff then does, too. Iron sharpening iron anyone? That's what's missing when you stick with spreading and that's the reason why I changed from spreading to shell/extend. Neg never gets any better cuz they run their same dumb arguments round after round. Aff never gets any better (except for the poor 1A who's trying his absolute hardest to copy college-speed only to leave the community judge in the dust) because their case is never really put to the test with anything concrete. Sure the neg might win the round, but nobody really leaves the round a real winner.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:58 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
If you're trying out the 1N position, then definitely familiarize yourself with the shells you run (assuming you--hopefully--shell at least some arguments in the 1NC) and probably write most of them yourself. I highly recommend doing a word count to estimate how long each shell should take to read. Find out how fast you tend to speak in debates and divide the word count per shell by your expected WPM.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:41 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Drew wrote:
Spreading is lame.

If it's "let's-throw-crap-at-a-wall-and-see-what-sticks" spreading, then I agree -- but that's not how we spread.
Drew wrote:
"this [insert justification/evidence/analysis/impact] deals with [insert argument], so if the other team attempts to bring this argument up in following speeches, refer back to my speech."

Sure, but in order to assume that that's effective you have to assume that I have no response to your response.
Drew wrote:
Katie can generally clump and dump pretty well.

That's exactly my point. Monroes clumped and dumped against us -- and in the process dropped almost all of my Topicality analysis and half of my significance analysis. They dropped even more of Daniel's stuff in the 1AR. With any other judge, we would've easily won.

If you clump and dump too much, you're going to drop analysis.
Chiara wrote:
it seems to me that the whole point of spreading is based on the hope that the 1A will drop something in her 1AR

Partially. It's a strategy for the win. But it's also about bringing up all of the arguments that should be brought up (and would be in real life) in order for the judge to really be able to evaluate the aff plan.
Chiara wrote:
which does not provide good clash

There's lots of clash -- the 1AR just has to be really fast.
Chiara wrote:
and therefore an educational experience

I think in every neg round Daniel and I have had every person in the room had an educational experience. Some affs just got lazy and dropped analysis.
Chiara wrote:
it can come across as rude and annoying as well.

It depends on the kind of spreading. If you ask the Monroes and Pierson/Prevost, we spread them -- but it wasn't crap-spreading. It was all legit stuff. Nobody was offended. Everybody was educated. We just didn't give them the liberty of moving slow in the 1AR.
debate angel wrote:
I think Katie and Drew's main point here is that it's a little lame (I had a hard time finding the right word, so I'll just settle with lame) for a negative team to win because they ran 19 stupid arguments

So true. That's why we never run stupid arguments :P

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Sorry if anyone has already said it, but what's the definition of spreading y'all are using? I highly doubt its the same as mine.

_________________
-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: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:51 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
^You're right, it probably is a lot different. The result by the end of the 1NR is usually a spread on analysis, but it wouldn't really be a "spread" by your terms.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:11 pm
Posts: 151
Home Schooled: Yes
thehomeschooler wrote:
Drew wrote:
Katie can generally clump and dump pretty well.

That's exactly my point. Monroes clumped and dumped against us -- and in the process dropped almost all of my Topicality analysis and half of my significance analysis. They dropped even more of Daniel's stuff in the 1AR. With any other judge, we would've easily won.

If you clump and dump too much, you're going to drop analysis.

Yeah, that's not how Katie clumps and dumps. Sure some teams do it wrong, but most good 1As should have a firm grasp on the skill. That's one of the reasons why relying on the 1AR to drop something in order to win as neg, is a really shaky strategy (and I'm not saying that's your strategy...but for many "spread" teams, it is.)

thehomeschooler wrote:
debate angel wrote:
I think Katie and Drew's main point here is that it's a little lame (I had a hard time finding the right word, so I'll just settle with lame) for a negative team to win because they ran 19 stupid arguments

So true. That's why we never run stupid arguments :P

My point wasn't that you guys run lots of stupid arguments (in fact none of what I said is specific to you guys at all). What I AM saying is that most good arguments take some developing. There's a limit to how many well-developed arguments you can fit into two constructives. If a team runs 10 + arguments, there is a 99% chance that at least one of them is dumb/under-developed. Once you get into 15-20 arguments, odds are that most of them are dumb (like what happened in Katie's round).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:00 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
debate angel wrote:
...most good arguments take some developing. There's a limit to how many well-developed arguments you can fit into two constructives.

That's true.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
Back on topic: If you want, try prescripting 1NC's.

I have several prescripted 1NC's that I use. i.e. Cut Aid, Amend New START, JV, and a few others. I don't have them prescripted for every case, but I have found that if a case is very common or if there is a particular team that you hate and want to smash (If either of these are true then you already know what arguments you are going to be running), you might as well prescript something. It doesn't take long and it vastly increases organization and lessens the amount of prep time that you'll need.

Plus, you'll sound good too. ;)

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
thehomeschooler wrote:
^You're right, it probably is a lot different. The result by the end of the 1NR is usually a spread on analysis, but it wouldn't really be a "spread" by your terms.

Yeah. A legit spread round in college (been in a few) is super in-depth, super educational, and one of the most fun things I've ever done. Its really fun when both teams can go 300-350+ WPM, know their stuff, and can flow that quickly.

In the NCFCA, assuming what I'm thinking of consists of spreading, its really not a legit strategy. Just throwing out jank analytics (or questions, those are my pet peeve. As Caleb Jesse, the coach at Western Kentucky [the #1 LD school in the nation] says, "Questions are not arguments!") without many (any?) warrants and then saying the aff dropped one or two isn't debate. Its just "gotcha" speaking. You might be able to win with it sometimes, but once you get to the higher levels you'll lose every neg round.

_________________
-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: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:44 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
LocutusofBorg wrote:
In the NCFCA, assuming what I'm thinking of consists of spreading, its really not a legit strategy. Just throwing out jank analytics (or questions, those are my pet peeve. As Caleb Jesse, the coach at Western Kentucky [the #1 LD school in the nation] says, "Questions are not arguments!") without many (any?) warrants and then saying the aff dropped one or two isn't debate. Its just "gotcha" speaking. You might be able to win with it sometimes, but once you get to the higher levels you'll lose every neg round.

Yyyyyup.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Practicing 1NC's
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:54 pm
Posts: 1074
Home Schooled: Yes
holy crap, WKY makes arguments now?

_________________
-Chris


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

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