1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Tricks"
→Responding to Tricks
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
[[Determinism]] is a position ran often by the negative that claims all of our actions have been predetermined since the beginning of the universe, which means agents do not have free will and are not responsible for their actions. Similar to skepticism, this denies the existence of moral obligations. | [[Determinism]] is a position ran often by the negative that claims all of our actions have been predetermined since the beginning of the universe, which means agents do not have free will and are not responsible for their actions. Similar to skepticism, this denies the existence of moral obligations. | ||
== Theory Tricks == | == Theory Tricks == | ||
=== Description === | === Description === | ||
Theoretical tricks attempt to win the theory layer of debate, and by extension the entire round since theory is often the highest layer. In contrast to substantive tricks which can be more thoughtful and nuanced, theoretical tricks are usually short and blippy arguments that are intended to be conceded to quickly win the round. | Theoretical tricks attempt to win the theory layer of debate, and by extension the entire round since theory is often the highest layer. In contrast to substantive tricks which can be more thoughtful and nuanced, theoretical tricks are usually short and blippy arguments that are intended to be conceded to quickly win the round. | ||
Some common theory tricks include, "Evaluate the debate after X speech," "All interps are counter-interps," "Reject affirmative/negative fairness arguments," etc. What all of these arguments share in common is that they are theoretically justified. That is, the warrant of all of these arguments will be rooted in fairness or education. This might seem counterintuitive considering these arguments are considered to be unfair, but remember that these arguments don't have to be particularly good; the debaters reading them are hoping that you will concede them. | Some common theory tricks include, "Evaluate the debate after X speech," "All interps are counter-interps," "Reject affirmative/negative fairness arguments," etc. What all of these arguments share in common is that they are theoretically justified. That is, the warrant of all of these arguments will be rooted in fairness or education. This might seem counterintuitive considering these arguments are considered to be unfair, but remember that these arguments don't have to be particularly good; the debaters reading them are hoping that you will concede them. | ||
=== Common Theory Tricks === | === Common Theory Tricks === | ||
[[Frivolous Theory]] is the practice of reading theory against arguments that aren't very unfair or uneducational, taking advantage that theory, under competing-interps, is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm. | [[Frivolous Theory]] is the practice of reading theory against arguments that aren't very unfair or uneducational, taking advantage that theory, under competing-interps, is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 30: | ||
[[1NC_Theory#Theory_Heavy_1NCs|Theory Heavy 1NCs]] can be read by negatives typically as a time-suck for the affirmative in the 1AR, in the hopes that they will either concede some theory argument or then undercover substance. | [[1NC_Theory#Theory_Heavy_1NCs|Theory Heavy 1NCs]] can be read by negatives typically as a time-suck for the affirmative in the 1AR, in the hopes that they will either concede some theory argument or then undercover substance. | ||
== Responding to Tricks == | == Responding to Tricks == | ||
Responding to tricks debate might seem daunting at first, but with practice, you will learn to become very proficient at doing so! Typically, you want to employ two practices when responding to tricks. | Responding to tricks debate might seem daunting at first, but with practice, you will learn to become very proficient at doing so! Typically, you want to employ two practices when responding to tricks. | ||
First, you should always uplayer the tricks with arguments that indict the specific tricks that are being read in round. Uplayering tricks is especially important because it provides you with some recourse in case you concede a trick. Even if you concede a trick, if you are also reading arguments that indict the practice of reading tricks or the tricks themselves, your arguments would still come first. You can typically uplayer tricks either through theory or kritiks. On the theoretical side, you might read a [[Combo Shells|combo shell]] that proves why some conjunction of your opponent's tricks is especially abusive and will cause you to lose the round. On the critical side, you might read a [[ | First, you should always uplayer the tricks with arguments that indict the specific tricks that are being read in round. Uplayering tricks is especially important because it provides you with some recourse in case you concede a trick. Even if you concede a trick, if you are also reading arguments that indict the practice of reading tricks or the tricks themselves, your arguments would still come first. You can typically uplayer tricks either through theory or kritiks. On the theoretical side, you might read a [[Combo Shells|combo shell]] that proves why some conjunction of your opponent's tricks is especially abusive and will cause you to lose the round. On the critical side, you might read a [[Spikes K]] which indicts the practice of reading short and blippy tricks in general. | ||
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. | ||