Skip to content
November 20, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Why can’t the affirmative just say dispo bad/condo bad in the 2ar?

This is from a cross-ex thread….search for it if you want to see the context better:

There is also a tendency of judges to protect the 2nr from new 2ar arguments. This type of protection can take three forms:
1. elimination of non-extrapolated arguments (ie new in the 2ar = bad & therefore eliminated–not the least of which because its unfair…..but it ignores clash & debate.)
2. giving the other team a virtual 3nr. (ie what would a reasonable team would have said to the new argument…..or what this team perhaps would have said.) To me, the former standard seems better….because overall reasonable responses are much easier to determine than what a specific team would have said. The later implies a rather profound amount of knowledge one could never have.
3. should a reasonable 2nr predicted and pre-empted this 2ar strategy. Given that scenario…..I really don’t see why. Its brand spanking new.

The lone exception might be
1. judge which are highly biased to begin with
2. rounds in performance/critical affs which question the rules of the game.

Although I think the aff might still have to do some work for most judges on #2.

Plus……two issues (mostly the first one…..I’ve added the second for relish)
1. The aff probably changed their strategy, didn’t go for all the 2ac arguments–so the argument would be a wash of sorts (linking to both teams equally).
2. Don’t run unpredictable strategy….while running a pretty unpredictable strategy.

I think I would kinda echo what Phantom 707 said too.

* Note: the judge isn’t giving the negative a 3nr in his/her mind. Its just a test or rule of thumb or heuristic for evaluating 2ar arguments in terms of fairness and legitimacy.
Also some judges are more liberal or less liberal in how much they check the aff in terms of what I would call discos……and this is probably the most extreme example of a disco I could think of.

** There might be another standard–although probably not used–should this argument have been made in the 2ac???? In this case, I also think the answer is yes…..if they intended to go for it. This doesn’t seem to be the best “rule of thumb”–but might aid in the application of others (ie there were alternatives for the 2ar……if they’d been smart they would have made this argument earlier).


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: