This week’s Pre-Glenbrooks edition of The 3NR Podcast—our eighth episode—features a discussion of several topics that will be helpful as you make your way to the Windy City for the nation’s largest debate tournament hosted by a high school. Scott, Roy, and Bill discuss pre-tournament preparation, politics research, file/update organization, 2AC strategies versus the politics disadvantage, impact turning politics, 1AR preparation strategies, adapting to unfamiliar judges, and a few other topics. All three of us will be in attendance at The Glenbrooks—including the Dodgeball Tournament—and we will be doing some special podcast interviews throughout the weekend.
As always, you can download this episode directly or access it (soon) through iTunes. We have also submitted our feed to the Zune Marketplace—hopefully it will show up there soon, too.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Roy started talking about double turning on purpose? "Neg thinks that the aff double turned themselves" in a good connotation; how's that work?
The non unique double turn is what you are referring to. It is not an actual double turn, it is reading link turns and impact turns to the disad, without making any non-unique args. So if theoretically the neg says
Health care will pass- pc key
plan kills hc
hc key to econ
the 2ac can say,
plan is popular –> more pc
Health care bad- kills the economy
Because no non unique was made, health care will pass either way, so there is no "unique link turn." The link turns become a defensive link take out. An inexperienced negative team might think that this was a double turn and mishandle it as such.
In a situation like this, as the negative, would it be possible to read a non-unique to your 1NC advocacy in the block to make the link turn offensive. In the context of politics, if an aff were to make the two turns you posetd above, could the neg then simply read "HC wont pass" and turn it into an Obama Bad disad using the 2AC offense?
obviously it would be possible, what i meant to ask was why can't the negative simply do this?
The neg can't read a non-unique because they already argued the precise opposite. Teams can argue new things, they can stop arguing things, and they can continue arguing things they already argued, but they can only argue against something they previously argued if they are conceding an arg made by their opponents. So the neg can concede or answer whatever aff args they want, and they can extend or not extend whatever 1nc args they want. But they can't contradict their own arguments – if teams could do this, debate would be impossible; straight-turning would be a strategic liability. The aff would read a heg good adv in the 1ac, the 1nc would straight impact turn with 7 heg bad scenarios, and the 2ac would say, 'ok, fine, heg is awful, and we're gonna read a 'plan destroys heg' card.' There's no logical difference b/w this and what you propose. Yes a link turn isn't strategically complete without a non-unique, but that doesn't mean that the aff was implicitly making a non-unique when they read link turns – policy debate doesn't include making implicit claims: the closest thing is embedded clash, but the only thing implicit there is what claim is being answered, not what claim is being made.
There's no justification in this scenario for the neg to change their claim about the uniqueness of the d/a, so they can't.
any idea when the next podcast will be coming? it's all i have on my christmas list. if you guys need a topic perhaps thoughts on the intrinsicness discussion over on the georgia debate blog?
@Nick Donlan
RE: Podcast, combination of thanksgiving, tech issues and some laziness, we'll try to do one this week.
RE: Intrinsicness- I've started writing a response to the UGA post. I hope to have it out before the New Year (to give myself extra time I will clarify that new year means Jewish new year)
Is the podcast dead? I like it a lot and would be very unhappy if it is
Thanks