Difference between revisions of "1AC Theory"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
15 bytes removed ,  21:35, 2 January 2022
m
(made it more organized)
Line 4: Line 4:
An example of an underview can be found at the bottom–notice how there are lots of spikes at the bottom that if conceded, result in the aff immediately winning the round.
An example of an underview can be found at the bottom–notice how there are lots of spikes at the bottom that if conceded, result in the aff immediately winning the round.
==Strategic Value==
==Strategic Value==
These can be strategic because
These can be strategic because:


1–Inefficient debaters would spend 2 minutes on a one minute under view because each blippy argument in the 1AC requires double the time to answer
# Inefficient debaters would spend 2 minutes on a one minute underview because each blippy argument in the 1AC requires double the time to answer.
 
# Debaters are often caught off guard, resulting in a few game over spikes inevitably being conceded.
2–Debaters are often caught off guard, resulting in a few game over spikes inevitably being conceded.
==Reading Underviews Strategically==
==Reading Underviews Strategically==
When reading underviews,
When reading underviews:
 
1–Make sure to change the underview to be contextual to the potential 1NC–the spikes read against a debater who reads philosophy should be different than a debater who reads disads and counterplans


2–6 minutes of spikes aren’t as strategic as it sounds–make sure to have a genuine substantive out as well in case you’re getting pummeled on the tricks layer
# Make sure to change the underview to be contextual to the potential 1NC–the spikes read against a debater who reads philosophy should be different than a debater who reads disads and counterplans.
# 6 minutes of spikes aren’t as strategic as it sounds–make sure to have a genuine substantive out as well in case you’re getting pummeled on the tricks layer.
==Responding to Underviews ==
==Responding to Underviews ==
When responding to long underviews,
When responding to long underviews,


1–Make overview responses! Tricks debaters like to hide spikes which means there’s a chance something will be conceded. Being able to make new responses to conceded spikes can be what changes an L to a W.
# Make overview responses! Tricks debaters like to hide spikes which means there’s a chance something will be conceded. Being able to make new responses to conceded spikes can be what changes an L to a W.
 
# Read meta theory (theory on theory) like must put spikes on the top of the aff, must disclose spikes, spikes ableist, etc. These indite the ability of affs to read an underview and can be a strategic way to uplayer in the 2nr
2–Read meta theory (theory on theory) like must put spikes on the top of the aff, must disclose spikes, spikes ableist, etc. These indite the ability of affs to read an underview and can be a strategic way to uplayer in the 2nr
# Minesweep! Most spikes are ridiculous and affs won’t go for them unless conceded–don’t spend too much time on each spike but make sure to put AN argument on it. During prep time, read through the underview very carefully and separate each spike on a new line to prevent hidden spikes. Practice responding to these underviews and being as efficient as possible (aka minesweeping drills).
 
3–Minesweep! Most spikes are ridiculous and affs won’t go for them unless conceded–don’t spend too much time on each spike but make sure to put AN argument on it. During prep time, read through the underview very carefully and separate each spike on a new line to prevent hidden spikes. Practice responding to these underviews and being as efficient as possible (aka minesweeping drills).


== Example ==
== Example ==
[[Media:Nailbomb-AC-Example.docx|Nailbomb AC Example]]
[[Media:Nailbomb-AC-Example.docx|Nailbomb AC Example]]
Content-Manager, Administrators
203

edits

Navigation menu