Answering Kritiks 2.0

Prithiv

Format

• Expect me to cold call!
• Ask questions!
• Type anytime
• Unmute when I tell you
• The objective is gaining a general understanding of answering K’s

Outline

• Debate Strategy
• What is a framework?
• Answering 1N Kritiks
1. 1AR
2. CX
3. 2AR
• Answering K affs
• T - Framework
• Kritiks
• Other Strategies
• Q&A

Strategy

• Time is the fundamental basis for strategy
• Win/Loss conditions
• OFFENSE OFFENSE OFFENSE
• Look for POSITIVE TIME TRADEOFFS
• Offense and impact turns - forces an answer
• Uplayering - theory and k
• Multi use args - both advantages impact out to nuke war - spark
• OVERVIEWS
• Time recovery arguments
• RVIs and presumption - converts defense to offense
• Independent voters
• Judge pref >>> opponent pref

Skill progression

Getting good

Skill

Effort^time

• “Push, pull, lean” model
• Be proactive!
• Record, record, record

What is a framework?

• Definition: A method by which judges evaluate impacts.
• Method - a procedure or series of steps
• Judges - BIAS is inevitable - best friend or greatest enemy
• Impacts - Defines what COUNTS as an impact and how to COMPARE them
• Generally 2 types - ethical and Role of the Ballot
• Ethical - “morality” - how to evaluate the resolution
• ROTB - Directive on what the “purpose” of debate is - Similar to Theory
• “Ought” misconception - ethics are a GUIDE, NOT a definition

Parts of a Framework

1. Explanation of the world - a Meta-Ethic or Theory of Power
1. Util, Kant, Cap, Afropess
2. Optionally - Comparative Worlds, Truth Testing, and Fiat
2. An impact - why do we care?
• Bindingness
• Purpose of debate - education, liberatory potential
• MUST answer this question!
3. A guide to action
• Plan texts, status quo/reject XYZ, advocacy skills
• Positive vs negative obligations

Answering Ks as the 1AR - things to keep in mind

• HEAVILY JUDGE RELIANT - primary objective is to SHIFT THE ETHOS of the debate
• The negative has longer speeches - enables easier storytelling
• Be wary of time commitments - don’t get baited into reading cards blindly
• Decide the approach you want to take ASAP
• Go right - impact turn the general thesis of the K
• Meet them in the middle - “soft left” - state action + the thesis of the k

Fourmula

1. Framework
2. Permutation
3. Disad on the alt
4. No Link

1. Framework

• Answer the ROTB - Substantively AND through Fiat
• Theory debate
• Disads to their ROTB - fairness question
• Advantages to yours - advocacy skills
• Contest the theory of power - progress is possible
• Reading cards helps here!

2. Permutation

• But wait jugal, aren’t perms just defense? What happened to OFFENSE OFFENSE OFFENSE?

​

• Make as many as you can afford
• Most time efficient argument in debate
• Be wary of “perm cards” - analytics are often good enough
• MUST HAVE A NET BENEFIT - why even do the aff?

3. Disads on the alt

• Bryant is the default go to - questions the validity of "thinking/talking" alts
• Specific disads are effective
• Materiality is a safe bet - what is the REAL WORLD implication of this action?
• If all else fails, theory - reject alts bad, must spec actor, same actor as aff, etc
• Can be risky - impact turns!
• Often unpersuasive

3.5 Alt Solvency

• CX is KING
• What is the method/mechanism?
• How does it solve the links?
• Good setup for the perm
• Contest the root cause claim
• Why do the aff?
• Contingency - Pappas

4. No Link

• READ THE NC - often say literally nothing, often misapplied
• Negative state action is very important
• Generic links have weak strength of link
• Links of omission
• paragraph theory
• VERY weak

Non-essential items

• Link turns
• Case reliant arguments should be done on the case page
• ONLY make independent args on the k flow
• Carded evidence is good here
• Case outweighs
• ROTB indicts

Going Right

Limited applicability - Cap, security, heg

1. Contest framework - generally the same way - fairness>education
2. Concede the link
1. Watch out for micro-impacts
3. Impact defense
• Answer the root cause claims
4. Justify impact turn
5. WEIGH

CX IS KEY

• Used to SET UP the fourmula
• save explanation time
• DUMB DOWN the debate - filter and translate jargon
• ONLY ask clarifiers that are relevant to filling out the fourmula
• ROTB warrants - often it says things are important
• Articulate WHY it's impact justified through a leading question

CX part 2

• Ask about the method (fiat?) or mechanism (process) by which the alt occurs.
• What does the world of the alt look like?
• Can you explain what action the alternative takes as if I was a 5 year old?
• Fiat? - how does it work? does it matter? does it exist?
• Is the speech act itself offense? do you have to win a link to the aff or is it performative?
• question and contest alt solvency
• Set up the materiality disad.

CX Part 3

• No link
• isolate warrants
• Root cause

EXAMPLE

• Ishan Bhatt (St. Andrews Episcopal) vs Anna Myers (Greenhill)
• Aff is about racism and elections
• Neg is 1 off set col
• Judge - Kedrick Stumbris
• Policy Background
• All of his students are util debaters
• Believes in resolutional action and implementation
• Dislikes theory

https://youtu.be/yiQU18NK688?t=1239

2AR

• MUST COMMIT
• Generally 2 primary options
• Framework, perm, case (maybe no link) - safe but more work
• Disad, no link, presumption - Situational, ethos dependent, risky
• Watch out for paragraph theory on perms from the 2N and “independent voter” tags

K affs

• Relatively diverse - topical action w/o the state to reading poetry
• Performance affs
• Isolates the speech act of the AC being good in and of itself
• Criticizes: debate as an activity, education/productivity, the res, the usfg
• Ballot is often used as a “referendum” - seek to make waves and shift debate culture
• Often reliant on some form of identity politics

Answering performance

• Can be tricky - need to avoid touchy subjects
• CX is incredibly useful - the goal is to isolate DISADS to their method
• what is a performance?
• exclusionary/totalizing
• Everything is a performance - performing as a policy maker good
• why does a performance mean u should win the round?
• ballot k
• How do we weigh between performances?
• solvency deficit
• illustrates if theyre just dumb
• exclusion disad - some are deemed "not good enough". not everyone is comfortable with performing

Off case positions

• Theory can be useful but be cautious this is often perceived as hard right - they'll be ready
• Planked interps soften the position
• If they defend the topic - aff is a performance that topic is good, if i prove topic bad that means performance bad
• Make a rotb claim - you can read a performance but you shouldnt win for it - solves their offense and functions as a tva on ballot k
• The debate starts and ends with the 1ac - often true when the 1ar is just a blitz of cards
• Presumption - empirics prove they do nothing
• Kills clash and justifies a TVA

Out lefting

• indict their comparatively moderate view of the world. Things like psychoanalysis, deleuze
• Other Links
• Author ad homs
• Can isolate criticisms of certain words or grammar
• Generally useful to learn at least one "lefter" kritik - afropess/set col. Cap works in a pinch

Moderate Ks/Disads

• University - presumption with big words
• Symbolism - Extrapolation of Bryant card
• Legalism - extrapolation of zanotti - State action key
• ballot k - demand for the ballot commodifies the kritik - why do you need to win if you're trying to be educational?

T - Framework

• Functionally a LONG justification for a counter role of the ballot - operates on the FRAMEWORK level
• 1) Must defend the resolution, hypothetical enactment, OR must defend policy action
• PLANKS - incredibly effective. Forces the 1ar to isolate why they don’t need to disclose.
• 2) Limits - infinite affs
• Reinforced by disclosure - prep k2 discussions

T - FWK 2

• 3) Stasis - Steinberg and freeley - clearly delineated difference between aff and neg ground
• Prereq to CLASH - isolated as a UNIQUE net benefit to debate
• Idea testing and advocacy skills - turns the aff under their fwk
• Switch side - defense on the counter interp - Aff edu can be gained when you debate as the neg

T - FWK 3

• 4) TVA - this is KEY - The aff can be done with the topic/policy/implementation!
• NEUTRALIZES education arguments. GAME OVER ISSUE
• also the hardest part of the shell - more specific the better - find carded evidence that indicates that policy discussions/debates are educational/effective to prepare activists on your topic
• can read as many as you want - effective time efficient strategy
• zanotti is often read as a generic justification for the tva - using the state k2 effective movements

T - Fwk - right wing

• Impact turning 1AC education arguments
• Functionally operates as Nebel - you read a jurisdiction voter
• Reliant on the idea of fairness as constitutive to debate
• Debate is a GAME
• Generally not as strategic - the aff is ready
• Disclosure can isolate that being non-topical is just a strategy choice - similar to the ballot k

I want to read K’s, where do I start?

• Reading books is SO overrated
• Source material sucks - don’t read Lacan/deleuze/etc
• Find articles - drug use article for deleuze is good
• Start with an application of the theory - xyz in context
• Cap
• Sustainability debate - real world impacts
• There’s always a link
• Can go very left or vague
• Security
• Converts defense to offense
• Really good starting point
• Great on this topic