Difference between revisions of "1AC Theory"
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Often in the 1AC, many affs, particularly nailbomb affs, have long underviews–theoretical spikes used to pre-empt 1NC strategies. | Often in the 1AC, many affs, particularly nailbomb affs, have long underviews–theoretical spikes used to pre-empt 1NC strategies. | ||
An example of an underview can be found | An example of an underview can be found below–notice how there are lots of spikes at the bottom that if conceded, result in the aff immediately winning the round. | ||
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 (2) Debaters are often caught off guard, resulting in a few game over spikes inevitably being conceded. | 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 (2) Debaters are often caught off guard, resulting in a few game over spikes inevitably being conceded. | ||
Revision as of 00:22, 28 December 2021
1AC Theory in the Form of Underviews
Often in the 1AC, many affs, particularly nailbomb affs, have long underviews–theoretical spikes used to pre-empt 1NC strategies.
An example of an underview can be found below–notice how there are lots of spikes at the bottom that if conceded, result in the aff immediately winning the round.
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 (2) Debaters are often caught off guard, resulting in a few game over spikes inevitably being conceded.
When reading underviews, 1–Make sure to change the underview to be contextual to the potential 1NC–the spikes read against a tricks debater should be different than a K debater 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
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. 2–Read meta theory–must put spikes on top, must disclose spikes, spikes ableist, etc indite the ability of affs to read an underview and can be a strategic way to uplayer in the 2nr 3–Minesweep! Most arguments 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, 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).