Skip to content
March 31, 2017 / compassioninpolitics

I believe there are three key ways to give a 2NC on the Critique.

1. Give a separate overview with [K outweighs, turns case], [our impact first/prior question], [root cause], and a brief description of the K proper, then the framework debate, then K proper starting by extending the 1NC stuff.

2. Same as 1 but mix the 1NC extensions and link and impact and alt debate into the line-by-line. The only thing with this is that the 2AC might be a random mix of perms, theory, no-link, etc. so it’s hard to know when to do, for example, the link debate.

3. Put the 1NC extensions and link, impact, and alt right into the overview, then do framework, then straight-up line-by-line the 2AC referencing the overview.

These three ways are from a cross-ex thread which is available here.  I haven’t reflected on them to really chose which would be best in the context of a given judge.  However something I guess to reflect on.

I would, however suggest using a separate sheet of paper for the overview or if you are giving meta-answers via some kind of grouping.

The challenge with giving meta-answers is that I think the 2ar is likely to shift to where the answers aren’t (line by line or overview).  Hopefully most judges will pick up on this.


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: