Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jimmy_Page

kritikal affs

Recommended Posts

If you kritik a purely kritikal aff you have to be very careful.

Your kritik has to be based off of the assumptions of the plan, not a more shady link like "expanding the peace corps leads to militarism because of bulldozers going through forests" or something like that.

You also have to be careful that your kritik isnt solved by the aff, like if the aff has a cosmopolitanism advantage dont run a generic nationalism kritik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's kind of pointless to read a critique against a critical affirmative; in general they can leverage their stance against your alternative and claim they solve the impact. Just engage them on the policy level with a counterplan that captures back their advocacy, with a net benefit.

 

wouldn't reading a k against a k aff be like an on point turn to the affirmatives stance. The K usually accesses all the affirmatives internals and then goes a step farther to solve the problem. Say the affirmative is kritical, defends the state and fiat, the k is always going to be more radical than the affirmative, and the best option in the round. Example- Aff is DADT claims to solve homophobia, alternative goes a step further through micropolitics to solve racism, sexism, classism and homophobia. I think reading a K against a k aff would be very strategic, they can't kritick your DA's, they actually have to win the aff is the most radical and best policy. Yeah sure a sweet PIC would be fine but the net benfit would probably be kritickable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotty Gottbreht, assistant coach of debate at Michigan University and lab leader at Michigan Classic, had the following to say about critical affirmatives (and how to answer them):

 

3 types of critical affs:

1- Affs which struggle on behalf of the oppressed

2 - Affs which challenge some greater power or concept (solving oppression itself)

3 - Really weird K affs (hyperreality, et al)

 

4 ways they can be run:

1 - Plan is topical, but K advantages are still pre-fiat

2 - Plan rides the fence (K post-fiat and pre-fiat, stuff like positive peace corps)

3- Topical demand - Doesn't need to pass with fiat, but solves impacts via discourse

4- Performance affs - nothing more need be said

 

Ways to attack the K:

1.) Framework - Beat the Aff by discrediting their pre-fiat impacts and winning that their discourse doesn't solve

2.) Impact turns K - Run a K that turns the Kritikal advantage and win your impact

3.) a.) Out-lefting the K ("Down with the state!"--> You can't prove you exist!")

b.) Out-liberaling the K ("Down with the state"-->"Help the oppressed!")

 

Tricks vs. Krit Affs:

-Set them up in cross-x: Force them into either defending their use of their actor or contradicting their plan text

-Get a sense for what T/procedurals to run; have an abuse story ready

-Bait them into wild args in their 2AC - pin down their advocacy and use it against them in the neg bloc (turning args into a decent abuse story, or turning their answers into further links to your K or case turns)

 

Always an option: Go for realism

-People need answers, Aff =/= provide them

-Change would only worsen situations

-Hege is K, et al

-Win your impacts - use your fiat framework to your advantage, and force them into impact calculus against their will

 

Versus aid cases (Peace Corps): Go with the raccoon theory (plan creates a dependency on the US' aid

 

Versus Victemization Cases (AmeriCorps service learning, LSA): Helping people implies that they're lower than you)

 

Derrida's "The Gift" is always a good thought vs. Peace Corps, aid cases, and the like...

 

Ambiguity of Effect: If advantage is vague, then others will use the K's justification for a contrary or otherwise undesirable end

 

Obi-Wan Theory: Use Student versus teacher, as they often contradict (Foucault versus Agamben, etc). They tend to disagree vehemently on key points, especially on alternatives (Foucault would never agree with plan, etc)

 

Dunno if that helps, but maybe it'll clarify and organize (even if it doesn't provide a clear strategy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldn't reading a k against a k aff be like an on point turn to the affirmatives stance. The K usually accesses all the affirmatives internals and then goes a step farther to solve the problem. Say the affirmative is kritical, defends the state and fiat, the k is always going to be more radical than the affirmative, and the best option in the round. Example- Aff is DADT claims to solve homophobia, alternative goes a step further through micropolitics to solve racism, sexism, classism and homophobia. I think reading a K against a k aff would be very strategic, they can't kritick your DA's, they actually have to win the aff is the most radical and best policy. Yeah sure a sweet PIC would be fine but the net benfit would probably be kritickable.

 

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong; usually the neg can make the argument that the critique solves better. I am simply of the opinion that the fact that the critique is more radical is its undoing - there are a ton of reasons to support the fact that a micropolitical movement will never solve, and if we combine some state action with the micropolitical movement, we leverage the most solvency.

 

As I said, you certainly can be right; but I just think the affirmative will be ahead in that debate, if they can give actual real-world solvency for their claim, and that's just why I think it's not strategic, although that's not to say it cannot be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong; usually the neg can make the argument that the critique solves better. I am simply of the opinion that the fact that the critique is more radical is its undoing - there are a ton of reasons to support the fact that a micropolitical movement will never solve, and if we combine some state action with the micropolitical movement, we leverage the most solvency.

 

As I said, you certainly can be right; but I just think the affirmative will be ahead in that debate, if they can give actual real-world solvency for their claim, and that's just why I think it's not strategic, although that's not to say it cannot be done.

Except, as is so oft pointed out by kritikal teams, aff plan never passes and can't access solvency in the same way the kritik can. The kritik actually has a real world application to the debate round and the micropolitical stances we as debaters take. The only "actual real-world" solvency in the round is the alternative for the kritik. As far as kritikal affs go, if they depend on state action they are just as vulnerable to kritik as other affirmatives, its just that instead of an impact debate, you hear a huge link turn/perm/solvency debate for the kritikal implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
Schroeder is good (university discourse author), if you like psychoanalysis. Then again if they don't defend plan text its much harder to get your link.

 

not that this has anything to do with this thread, but shouldn't it be "praise be to the Timecube"?

i mean c'mon, andrew. have some faith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not that this has anything to do with this thread, but shouldn't it be "praise be to the Timecube"?

i mean c'mon, andrew. have some faith

I was merely answering a question not attempting to convert those I already ahve to the almighty cube of time. Timecube is of course the only kritik you should ever run, in fact all kritikal and critical thought stems from the cube. Foucault loved the cube, read the lit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's kind of pointless to read a critique against a critical affirmative; in general they can leverage their stance against your alternative and claim they solve the impact. Just engage them on the policy level with a counterplan that captures back their advocacy, with a net benefit.

 

That's gotta be working like gangbusters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree and what K would you suggest against superK affs?

 

I think Lacan university discourse is good and turns case... but other suggestions?

 

I truely think foucault in a one off situation is more damning that most K affs. Of course even against Foucault affs a one off strat would probably grant you better solvecny and your links would be better and more specifc(otherwise you wouldnt run them). In that situation you dotn ahve to worry about framework or realism or hege or anything besides the story that needs to be told. What do you mean by super K affs? Because since alot of them have to do with "power relations" i think foucault and his followers are an obvious choice, his whole notion of resistance and the politics of refusal are pretty well situated for a setting like debate. Plus most K debates end up being foucault debates by the 2NR anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except, as is so oft pointed out by kritikal teams, aff plan never passes and can't access solvency in the same way the kritik can. The kritik actually has a real world application to the debate round and the micropolitical stances we as debaters take. The only "actual real-world" solvency in the round is the alternative for the kritik. As far as kritikal affs go, if they depend on state action they are just as vulnerable to kritik as other affirmatives, its just that instead of an impact debate, you hear a huge link turn/perm/solvency debate for the kritikal implications.

 

The critique never happens either. The only thing that does happen is that micropolitically, the aff endorses state action, and the neg endorses micropolitical action. Critical teams cannot necessarily gain any more leverage from their discourse than the affirmative team can (talking about why state action is necessary to solve the problem). If the negative is willing to point out that plan never passes and the only thing that matters is stance within the round, then all pre-fiat/post-fiat implications go away and all you do is compare stances; at that point, you could probably weigh impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The critique never happens either. The only thing that does happen is that micropolitically, the aff endorses state action, and the neg endorses micropolitical action. Critical teams cannot necessarily gain any more leverage from their discourse than the affirmative team can (talking about why state action is necessary to solve the problem). If the negative is willing to point out that plan never passes and the only thing that matters is stance within the round, then all pre-fiat/post-fiat implications go away and all you do is compare stances; at that point, you could probably weigh impacts.

 

when a team goes for a discursive framework, unless they are absolutely terrible, they will have discursive links and implications to the plan. this means they have offense against your discourse, so that even risk of a solvency deficit to the alt still means the alt is better because the plan does nothing. also, they should (and probably will) have a card that talks about appeals to the state to bring about these reforms fail for whatever reason, meaning you have no discursive solvency for your aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude - T...And all the above...

 

As for out-lefting them - go and do a silent performance in the 1NC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...