Content-Manager
9
edits
Difference between revisions of "Tricks"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Responding to Tricks: added some stuff about responding to trix
(→Responding to Tricks: added some stuff about responding to trix) |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Second, you should still attempt to line-by-line and respond to every argument. Conceded arguments, even if silly, can be especially damning and you should make every attempt to put at least some ink on the flow so judges will be very hesitant at voting for that argument. Even if you are uplayering the tricks, there is the possibility that your opponent could leverage some trick to take out your arguments, so you should make every attempt at engagement. | Second, you should still attempt to line-by-line and respond to every argument. Conceded arguments, even if silly, can be especially damning and you should make every attempt to put at least some ink on the flow so judges will be very hesitant at voting for that argument. Even if you are uplayering the tricks, there is the possibility that your opponent could leverage some trick to take out your arguments, so you should make every attempt at engagement. | ||
Third, generate turns! Often, people running tricks justify each trick as an independently sufficient reason to affirm/negate. You can use this to your advantage. For example, as an AC against an NC saying - decision making paradox, its impossible to make a decision because each decision requires a meta-level decision, and that decision also needs another meta-level decision to infinity, turn this by saying this flips aff since the aff spoke first therefore the 1AC is the simplest speech of the round and easiest to make a decision on since the neg hasn't spoken yet, so to avoid the paradox just vote aff and forget the 1NC. And, since each trick independently negates, I turned it meaning it also independently affirms. | |||