Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
poor.yorick

Why don't novicies run K's?

Recommended Posts

I might run my first K at a tournament tomorrow, but I've noticed that K's have been sort of taboo for novices. Why is that the case? Is there some huge reason not to run a K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judges might be more skeptical to vote on the K because:

 

A. They think maybe you're not doing anything on your own, just reading blocks your coach gave you

 

B. It requires in-depth knowledge of literature, which many novices are unaware of. This might scare other novices from the debate, which kills the point of learning the activity.

 

I would advise that if you run a K, be willing to explain it and "dumb it down" so both the judge and the other team understand you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be very fluent and confident to win on a K against a good team. Novices are still learning the basics and cannot explain a well thought out K in an organized manner. Its much better to acquire skills on disads and counterplans than to jump to a criticism that you have no had experience with (reading or running it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried running a kritik my novice year and lost because i couldn't explain it well enough. Indeed there are many novices who do understand the kritik well enough to be successful but the majority are just trying to grasp the concept of a counterplan. If you get it and you can make your judge get it, run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried running a kritik my novice year and lost because i couldn't explain it well enough. Indeed there are many novices who do understand the kritik well enough to be successful but the majority are just trying to grasp the concept of a counterplan. If you get it and you can make your judge get it, run it.

 

That's exactly right. Even many varsity members can't run a K well.

 

This year (sophomore) I went from going 0-3 on my K at Grapevine (Dallas) to 4-0 at Tom C. Clark (San Antonio) and 3-0 at Katy.

 

What did I do between those tournaments? I read the book that the K was cut from.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might run my first K at a tournament tomorrow, but I've noticed that K's have been sort of taboo for novices. Why is that the case? Is there some huge reason not to run a K?

In my brief string as a judge, I've found numerous novices run Ks, just not as well as you'd need to for me to actually vote on it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran kritiks my novice year virtually every neg round. I was very successful with them, and the reason that's so is because I cut them myself. I would suggest that if you're a novice and you want to run a kritik you should cut it yourself and have a varsity debater or coach help you block/organize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once told that the person who will win a kritik debate is the one who knows the most about the literature.

 

It's likely that until you, at the very least, get very familiar with your shell and A2, you won't be able to be very successful with a kritik. The K's I've been sucessful (although how successful is up for debate) are the ones that I've devoted some time to understanding and reading further on.

 

Further, there are a lot of arguments that you have to be able to discuss well like framework, impact calc, that novices aren't always very versed in.

 

Finally, and this isn't universal, but judging quality at novice tournaments is often lower than on the varsity level. My mom, for example, is a lot less likely to vote on a poorly run Zizek Kritik than on saving children from disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many others said, most novices don't understand the K enough to run a lot of them. However, it's my novice year and I have cut a few K's and I run biopower and Nietzsche a lot. Given I read Nietzsche before I was in debate, if you want to learn a K, you should cut your own, it'll give you a deep understanding. Most novices won't even know a large part of understanding how it functions, effects the debate round, because they're still trying to build basic skills. I would cut one if you're really interested but like many others said, novice year is for building skills and most wouldn't understand them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that critiques are necessarily harder to understand than policy issues. Senior debaters pretend this is the case, but that's mostly because they're late-teens with a grasp of the basics, and therefore think they're gods. In reality, international politics disads are just as difficult to understand as most critiques, even though they're not usually written in postmodern-speak.

 

But critiques certainly are very different, and to run them effectively, you need to understand how policy debate works first. Novices usually do very poorly if they're handed a critique too early. You learn to debate faster if you master case/disad/counterplan/procedural debate, and then go on to the more esoteric stuff where the debate theory is not totally agreed-upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Novices usually do very poorly if they're handed a critique too early.

yes... i agree. in the middle of this year, my partner wanted to run a biopolitics K. (it is his second year and my first) After trying to teach me what it was, i felt i knew it well-- until he told me 2 explain it. i failed miserably.

 

Also, a few touranments ago, one novice team ran a Westernization bad K. They didn't even have an impact to it, nor could they explain anything. This was in quarters. (they probably only got there because every1 else was like "omfg! a K!"

 

But some novices are good with Ks. the next round we hit a kritikal aff which I only figured out how to answer it in my 2NR. They ran KATO. so in my last speech, i just severed out of the link. Yeah, they then read a severence bad theory, but we still won somehow.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that, especially in Missouri (and debate here is different...and...interesting), that running kritiks as case turns without an alternative can be a really effective strategy. Because, while rejecting imperialism may be a harder sell to your run of the mill judge, the fact that american imperialism over the years has caused some problems, and that likely their aid will replicate these same problems, is a pretty logical argument.

 

It also requires a little less work on the theory debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we run an RVI on T. its pretty stupid, but ive won on it once.
But some novices are good with Ks. the next round we hit a kritikal aff which I only figured out how to answer it in my 2NR. They ran KATO. so in my last speech, i just severed out of the link. Yeah, they then read a severence bad theory, but we still won somehow.:)
we meet their def even though we dont give to the gvt. it says "most." We meet and then just run a T bad theory. It is a pretty stupid theory, but I have won on it!

Teach me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for taking up the mantle of trolling this thread in my stead, Dmull.

 

EDIT: Is it bad if I troll threads in a forum in which I am a mod?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they're freaking new at this and don't know how? or at least aren't used to it? or because they're not sure how to argue it? there are so many reasons. i mean, seriously, as a novice me and my partner were afraid to run T! for exactly all of those reasons. haha. it wasn't great.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kritiks aren't necessarily taboo for novices, it's just that nobody will vote for you if you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you can't live without running a K, I'd try a Reps K. Literature on racism and eurocentrism is fairly easy to understand, and these Ks have clear links to nearly every aff.

 

Just don't try and read your varsity Nietzsche file if you've never read any primary or secondary Nietzsche literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just don't try and read your varsity Nietzsche file if you've never read any primary or secondary Nietzsche literature.

 

In general - it's a good idea to understand the literature behind your argument becuase you will find that as you become better and better at the K, that the majority of your speeches become your own analysis as opposed to cards. When you are approaching a new lit base, be sure to understand the concepts outside of debate. This (in my experience) will help you be able to apply it to debate more universally -vastly improving your ability to give K analysis.

 

In general, even if you don't plan on running any K's your novice year, it never hurts to pick up a book and start education yourself. Watch some K debaters and decide where you want to start - from there it's just a matter of how much time you're willing to spend understanding it and how well you can contextualize your arguments. -that usually comes with time and perseverance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh how I have forgotted about Kato. THE novice k (ok so maybe Cuomo too)

 

You don't know how to answer their disad? Well, does it cause nuclear war? Read this! Reps come first! No one knows how to answer this! Overviews included.

 

This alone will get you to octos at novice tournaments. Arguments about complexity (which Tomak best expressed) are kind of missing the point: there's much simpler cheap-shots to go for. The novices that run Ks generally do "get" it just like they get politics disads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've run K's since my first neg round... It is not "harder" than running a CP it is just a different approach to arguing really.

 

I've disliked Capitalism since 6th grade so for me it was nothing new to run a Cap K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because they're freaking new at this and don't know how? or at least aren't used to it? or because they're not sure how to argue it? there are so many reasons.

 

i don't think being new to debate harms your kritik-running performance (no pun intended) to any substantial extent. as long as any debater knows the literature well enough and runs the k enough times to get comfortable with it, he/she can definitely pull off many solid neg wins. At the end of my novice year, I felt comfortable enough with the k to run 3 k's every neg round (ofc i didn't understand the literature perfectly, but then again, nobody really does most of the time...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...