Skip to content
September 30, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Digressions on Extending Arguments in the 2AC

You could do one sentence extensions of entire arguments–or maybe two or three really short sentences. This would be similar to how overview/stories work on disads.

Also, you should be extending this stuff anyway by cross-application on the case debate and disads at the very least. Any time you mention an author or impact scenario–technically thats an extension.

Theres also the argument that:
1) they dropped our argument first.
2) our response to their response is itself an extension

Embedded cross-application can also be used. This is when the core story/framing/distinction/trick(s) are embedded in cards. This in other words would be done once on harms/advantage and once on the solvency debate. This could include impact comparison or evidence comparison.

* The two numbers can really be abused. Its just to point out you don’t have to say the word “extension” to actually extend something. Although, some judges may be stuck in this way of thinking–and you may have to adapt in certain circumstance.
** I’ve never heard this term used I don’t think–but its a thing. And it seems incredibly strategic because it allows you to create offense or at least other arguments that can be easily extended.


One Comment

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Sep 30 2013 3:06 am

    There is also the “extend our argument” and heres a totally new argument method.

    Or the “extend our argument” and here’s another reason or another impact.

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: