Every single year, my partner for that year and I made an unconventional decision: to swap speaker positions between aff and neg. And every year, I ended up as the 1N and 2A. It seems more common now, but my first year of TP not being the first speaker or second speaker for both sides was something many teams had never considered.
I believe that more teams could benefit from experimenting with speaker positions, because it absolutely could make or break your rounds.
I can’t even tell you how many times I thought to myself that I would have had a much harder time winning if the opposing team had just switched their speaker order. Hopefully this post can give you some insight into what you should consider when choosing your positions.
The 1A: be concise
First off, the 1A. By far the most important skill for this speaker position is the ability to be concise. They have 5 minutes to respond to 13 minutes of content from the negative, and if the negative did their job, the 1AR almost certainly will be the hardest speech of the round. The 1A also needs to be very clear in their explanations so as not to lose the narrative of the affirmative.
The 1N: setting the tone
Second, the 1N. Depending on the round, the 1NC could also arguably be the hardest speech of the round. This speaker must be skilled at coming up with questions on the fly and setting the tone for the negative narrative. Typically, as the 1N, I addressed both the very broad topical responses to the affirmative plan as well as the initial questions we had about the feasibility of the plan. Optimally, the 1N gives a speech that can be tied in to and fleshed out with the 2N and 1NR.
The 2A: an expert on the case
Third, the 2A. This speaker absolutely must be an expert on the aff case. Obviously, both teammates should know what they are talking about, but it is more important for the 2A. They must be good at narrative control and personable persuasion because the 1A may not have time in the 1AR to respond and fully advance the affirmative narrative. Since the 2A expands on the aff case and has the last word in the round, they must be able to prioritize the most important affirmative issues. Over time, the 2A narrative may become largely scripted, but they must be able to deviate if necessary.
The 2N: prioritizing arguments
Fourth, the 2N. As the one to give the second constructive and the one who wraps up the negative round, this speaker should work toward being able to decide on the final version of the negative narrative and plant enough doubt in the judges’ minds so that the 2AR is not enough to convince them that the affirmative plan is worth the risks or uncertainty. They must be able to correctly prioritize arguments for the 2NR. For myself, as a very detail-oriented person, the 2N was always more of a struggle for me because I sometimes tended to prioritize the wrong arguments in the 2NR.
Good luck and happy debating!
