NDT 1995 - Octafinals - Georgia BN vs Texas BE 1NC:
Wayback Machine: 1995 NDT. Texas v Georgia. 1NC from UTNIF on Vimeo.
1995 NDT Georgia BN vs Texas BE - Post 1NC Commentary by Joel Rollins and Brian McBride:
Georgia BN vs Texas BE Post 1NC Commentary from UTNIF on Vimeo.
NDT 1995 - Octafinals - Georgia BN vs Texas BE Cross Ex of the 1NC:
1995 NDT Georgia BN vs Texas BE CX of the 1NC from UTNIF on Vimeo.
1995 NDT Georgia BN vs Texas BE - Commentary on the CX of the 1NC by Joel Rollins and Brian McBride:
Texas Be vs Georgia BN - Post CX of 1NC Commentary from UTNIF on Vimeo.
I think the discussion of the strategy of engaging in a robust case debate, when those case arguments intersect the off-case positions is an interesting one. On the one hand, one could say that such time in the 1NC is wasted, because a team will just cross-apply answers from the off-case position to the on-case arguments or vice versa, thus negating the time0advantage one hopes to get with running positions in the 1NC that will not appear in the 2NR. On the other, as Joel and Brian say, this sort of debate grounds the critical theory in important ways because its manifestations become much more concrete. I'm wondering whether the strategic value of thematically linked case and off-case arguments is negated by the time trade-off in making fewer diverse arguments.
ReplyDeleteI don't think in terms of time trade-offs, but I do think it makes it harder, not easier, for Affirmatives to apply generic K args when specific integration of the theory is made on the case debate. Many of the cross apps will be non-sensical--diverse arguments, by and large, tend to be underdeveloped and easily dismissed. Spew for the sake of spew is still spew.
ReplyDelete