Skip to content
September 26, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Some other 2ac advice for novices debating in front of lay judges in policy debate

What are the main arguments you need to answer?
What arguments will your opponents be running?

Focus on cross application with explanation & offense & try to put at least one try or die claim on each disad.

I think with lay judges you should have a decent amount of defense…especially in terms of empirically transportation policy hasn’t caused this harm ever before.
Thats not quite the way you want to frame it.


The argument in the 2ac would be something like:
Non-unique–X, Y, and Z.
Empirically denied. X, Y, and Z. History is on our side.

I was just saying that you want to probably go deeper….particularly in speeches after the 2ac….you can extend either one BOTH.

You also want to make comparisons between how small your aff is when compared with your non-uniques or empirically denied.
They were big…..they didn’t cause it. We are small…..we would be even less likely to solve it. Functionally making it a zero risk situation.

Given your affirmative….there are also a number of underview arguments you can run (about risk by rescher & the value of rights as trumps & intervening actors by gewirth, there are also some Black Swan risk cards as well, rule utilitarianism favors rights, etc…).

Are you reading dehumanization?????

Theoretically….the only way they should be able to beat you with a disadvantage… if they also have either
1) viable case turns that really turn the entirety of the case
2) a counterplan that solves most of the case–that also avoids the disad.

Disads most of the time are relatively low risk in general. They are mostly contrived.

If you have a little time in cross ex….say 30 seconds….you can point these out in the cross ex of the 2nc. Inevitably….they won’t be able to answer it unless they have a really compelling “now is the key time” story. Generally the only disad that does this is politics.

One more thing…..
a) we solve the disad (either cross apply 1ac evidence, make an argument, or read evidence).
b] add-on advantage (usually 2 pieces of evidence is best, and usually a bit on the short side). This can often be a way that you can win, even if they are putting lots of pressure on solvency (it depends on how the add-on is accessed…..)
are key. Especially as a way to take out the net benefit to a counterplan (the net benefit is the disad or two that doesn’t link).

These 2 are your saving grace and put tons of pressure on the negative block.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: