Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

T In Kritikal Affs


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 enoryt

enoryt

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
7
Okay

Posted 25 February 2012 - 02:24 PM

So, I'm a Novice and am really interested in becoming a kritikal-oriented debater and was interested in K AFFs specifically, things such as DnG AFFs or Dedev AFFs, how does one handle topicality? I'm interested in cases sort of like the group from Churchill (Lipton & Binbaum), how do they handle T in cases like that?
  • 0

#2 LilMax

LilMax

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
86
Excellent
  • Name:Maxwell
  • School:Millard South

Posted 25 February 2012 - 08:46 PM

Say T/Framework is a link to your aff, meaning the epistemological implications are bad.
  • 0

#3 Woofwoof

Woofwoof

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
125
Excellent
  • Name:Kevin Ryu
  • School:Magnet

Posted 25 February 2012 - 09:07 PM



scroll down the vids
these are really good (not sure if you want to go for whiteness with you critical aff) but watev
  • 0

#4 enoryt

enoryt

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
7
Okay

Posted 25 February 2012 - 09:55 PM

Say T/Framework is a link to your aff, meaning the epistemological implications are bad.


Sorry if it sounds stupid, but what exactly do you mean by epistemological implications are bad and as such links to my aff?
  • 0

#5 Ganondorf901

Ganondorf901

    Emissary of Death and Darkness

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
617
Excellent
  • Name:Aubtin Heydari
  • School:Harrisonburg High School

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:17 PM

Don't listen to those. If your a novice, read a policy aff. Get used to it, wait till your able to debate at JV or Varsity preferably. Second, the easiest way to answer T is to read a topical plan (Like Kritikal SETI or something) . If your looking for questionably topical plans, you'll want to find some way to fit the res with smart T debating (like bastardly 'we meet's and counter-interps). If it's straight untopical, just have a framework that says why your debate is more important than the res. Thats it in a nutshell. Also, don't read Ks of T.
  • 0

Solidarity forever

I would say I was still a Marxist - which is not to be confused with being a Communist. Despite its flaws, Marxism still seems to explain the material world better than anything else. - Alexei Sayle

 


#6 enoryt

enoryt

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
7
Okay

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:48 AM

Don't listen to those. If your a novice, read a policy aff. Get used to it, wait till your able to debate at JV or Varsity preferably. Second, the easiest way to answer T is to read a topical plan (Like Kritikal SETI or something) . If your looking for questionably topical plans, you'll want to find some way to fit the res with smart T debating (like bastardly 'we meet's and counter-interps). If it's straight untopical, just have a framework that says why your debate is more important than the res. Thats it in a nutshell. Also, don't read Ks of T.

This is what I'm trying to get my clarification of, would this F/W be around the bounds that T is irrelevant and AFF must be passed before _____?
  • 0

#7 RyeZOAM

RyeZOAM

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
427
Excellent
  • Name:Mason Owen
  • School:Shawnee Mission South

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:05 AM

This is what I'm trying to get my clarification of, would this F/W be around the bounds that T is irrelevant and AFF must be passed before _____?


With aff's that basically just say "fuck the rez, [x] is more important", the argument isn't going to be that T is irrelevant, rather, a more offensive argument like T is bad (limits activism, destroys better edu, imposes a form of academic fascism, or some other shenanigans). K aff teams that have the more critical advocacies tend to just kritik T rather than answer it. ultimately, you want to win that the endorsement of the affirmative can lead to some change in ideology or method, and ultimately that you can weigh the effects of that against whatever fairness or ground standards the neg throws at you.

now, if you're going more for a topical plantext with kritikal advantages and stuff, and the neg just reads whatever the popular T shell is against you, answering it directly is probably more in your favor since you're actually trying to affirm the rez (the K of T offense can still be used here). it all really depends on what kind of K aff you're going for.
  • 0
If the foregoing analysis is valid, not much needs to be said about the alternative. We must develop ways of life in which all can live well without taking more than their fair share and therefore without living in fear of someone else threatening what we have. That is precisely what a radical conserver society involves. A world made up of relatively small communities which were supplying their own needs mostly from their local resources, and concerned primarily with enjoying a life rich in cultural and craft and community activities, without any interest in constantly increasing the amount they consume, would be a far more secure world. There would be no point in you attacking anyone, because you would not want much and what you did want you would have in abundance from local sources. Similarly you would not feel any need for weapons with which to defend yourself, because you would know that others were living comfortable and interesting lives without wanting more resources than they could supply for themselves and therefore they would have no interest in attacking you. Security is an impossible goal if it is conceived in terms of developing the arms needed to defend our imperial interests and to defend ourselves against attack — while we insist on lifestyles which inevitably involve us in taking more than our fair share and therefore asserting control over ‘ours oilfields in the Middle East and in turn having to be armed to the teeth to fight off threats to them. Real security consists in knowing no one has any desire to threaten you.

#8 Ganondorf901

Ganondorf901

    Emissary of Death and Darkness

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
617
Excellent
  • Name:Aubtin Heydari
  • School:Harrisonburg High School

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:07 AM

Depends on the functionality of the aff. If your aff operates within fiat (which I would suggest against), you'd need a reason as to why the resolution is bad or why your debate is preferable. For instance, with Give Back the Land, the thesis is that no matter what bengin attempts at reform the USfg makes, it still can't make up for it's imperialistic origins while it exists on the land that belongs to the Native Americans. The argument is that nothing else matters in the round but the US's oppression of Native Americans and restoring their land is a priori. Then a reason why topic specific education is bad, etc. etc..
Then comes more critical affs, like DnG and CRT. For those, you argue that fiat doesn't exist, nothing in this round spills over and the only education we receive is the education we debate about. Maybe 1% become actual policy makers, and those that do end up becoming corrupt assholes. You make arguments that your discussion actually causes change and how the debate space must be used as a tool to [Insert clause here].
  • 0

Solidarity forever

I would say I was still a Marxist - which is not to be confused with being a Communist. Despite its flaws, Marxism still seems to explain the material world better than anything else. - Alexei Sayle

 






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users