Jump to content
killabee331

Kritikal AFF's

Recommended Posts

i was wondering how a Kritikal aff is set up, i.e. if it has solvency inherency and advantages like an normal aff and pretty much anything else u can tell me about them.

 

Also i need to know how u would debate against a Kritikal aff, i.e. argue the frame work and the good stuff like that, and if u can run normal arguements like DA's, CP's, T, and solvency on them.

 

finally if u have any strategies that u personally use when debating a kritikal aff. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kritikal affs can be set up numerous ways, with everything usual, or even without plans. It depends on the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you can do for the most basic Kritical aff is set everything up like normal, run only pre fiat advantages and solvency, and have a last observation pertaining to why fiat is bad, your varsity kids or coach should have that stuff. Through a card in there about how debate is a form of ploitical activism. And lastly when writing plan text, (If you choose to have one), say that "WE DEMAND that the usfg est. ......"

 

that is for a purely kritical aff. if you want to have a partly critical aff (both post and pre fiat) take out the demand part of the plan text, and run both post and prefiat solvency, and have your last observation be about why a combo of both pre and post fiat is necessary to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what you can do for the most basic Kritical aff is set everything up like normal, run only pre fiat advantages and solvency, and have a last observation pertaining to why fiat is bad, your varsity kids or coach should have that stuff. Through a card in there about how debate is a form of ploitical activism. And lastly when writing plan text, (If you choose to have one), say that "WE DEMAND that the usfg est. ......"

 

that is for a purely kritical aff. if you want to have a partly critical aff (both post and pre fiat) take out the demand part of the plan text, and run both post and prefiat solvency, and have your last observation be about why a combo of both pre and post fiat is necessary to solve.

For a pure kritikal aff, you won't have a plan. Most of the time. You just kritik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a "critical advantage" affirmative. That's a case that's got normal inherency/solvency/advantages. But, one of the advantages will be a critical one. That advantage is what the affirmative goes for most times. Yet, it still has enough to win in a policymaking format, if it goes there.

 

A more critical style affirmative will generally have a demand text, but not necessarily a plan and they'll have purely critical impacts. There will still be an observation structure and things like that. And, the flow will be important, but, it's still a critical affirmative.

 

Then there are purely critical affirmatives. They won't have a text to anything. It won't be something easily flowed. There's no observation structure, and they might just perform. It's a matter of preference, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pre-fiat is the part of the debate before the one ac. post-fiat is the part after the two ar. foo.

 

a critical affirmative is an affirmative that criticizes something, usually the resolution or some topical action that is occurring that's bad for whatever reason. they have inherency, and advantages, and solvency, always, in that there's some problem that they address and attempt to solve.

 

that's the main problem with most critical affirmatives - they attempt to fix something, when the authors that they use to criticize whatever usually don't believe that the problem can be fixed. this argument usually only applies to critical affirmatives with a plan text. when you hit these the most strategic argument is to run whatever criticism they're using on them, and with a different alternative.

 

sometimes they don't have plans and just criticize some notion. other times they don't do anything. they can do anything, really, but they usually criticize something.

 

there are lots of ways to beat them. they frequently aren't topical or have some awkward notion of fiat. a good argument is fiat is good (roleplaying good, whatever), because it is, but make sure to clarify their framework during c-x. if they claim they're using fiat, chances are they don't solve, and their author doesn't like what they're doing. if they say fiat is illusory then say fiat is good, because roleplaying is good, and we all want to be like the government because it's educational, and also say that their discourse doesn't matter as it doesn't really effect anything except for their win-loss record. also, it's unfair to you, because all they have to do is be the first to say "racism is bad" and win because, well, it is. same if they say fiat is bad. if they say they're pre-fiat and post-fiat or whatever, they're full of shit for the above reason, and then argue that fiat is good. fiat theory can be very hairy, so search these forums to learn more.

 

t is always a good option, especially "should." perhaps the easiest way is to turn them. heg good, state good, capitalism good, space good, nanotech good, cap key to space, heg key to cap, heg key to space, etc. while there's great evidence indicting these claims for whatever ontological reason, it's easy (EASY) to win the impact debate here, as you're impacts are unique, likely (this is where your evidence is better, it'll be a while before biopolitics bring us to the zero point of holocaust or whatever), and big. you can run disads against them sometimes, and if not you can argue that they're being abusive because you can't. the same applies with counterplans, and they're very strategic if they have a plan text - just change the language a little and claim whatever benefit you'd like (critical ones are most strategic, because it's hard to get away with changing plan text, but disadvantages and case turns work as well). also, they frequently don't solve, so solvency is a good argument.

 

and, like i said, use the search function, because there are always more ideas and the debate can be very messy due to theory.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have been running a critical aff this year. Although we didnt set up an exact framework. We would answer everything policy level (case outweighs) etc., but we would also go into pre fiat, and how that comes first. We would ussually say that since fiat is illusory, look at in round discourse before everything else, and their discourse is bad because it advocates inaction to genocide.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have been running a critical aff this year. Although we didnt set up an exact framework. We would answer everything policy level (case outweighs) etc., but we would also go into pre fiat, and how that comes first. We would ussually say that since fiat is illusory, look at in round discourse before everything else, and their discourse is bad because it advocates inaction to genocide.

Sudan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can someone say framework conditionality?

 

Thats a possibility, i never really thought about it. But i would probably say that we will advocate plan in both worlds throughout the round, we wont drop the policy level and say fiat bad. And also neg has framework conditionality, they can run a K, then kick it and go for the DA.

 

And it wasnt sudan, it was RRF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can someone say framework conditionality?

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WE BELIVE DISCURSIVE IMPLICATIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT, BUT IF YOU WIN THAT FIAT IS GOOD, WE CAN STILL OPERATE ON THAT LEVEL WITH OUR SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WE BELIVE DISCURSIVE IMPLICATIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT, BUT IF YOU WIN THAT FIAT IS GOOD, WE CAN STILL OPERATE ON THAT LEVEL WITH OUR SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

 

which proves abuse because you can go for either framework in the 1ar/2ar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which proves abuse because you can go for either framework in the 1ar/2ar

ITS NOT ABUSIVE, WE CAN OPERATE ON BOTH LEVELS-- WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF GOING FOR THE DIFF FRAMEWORKS- SAME IMPX, SAME SHYT, JUST OPERATES ON BOTH LEVELS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard about the kritikal aff "Invade America." Other than topicality, what are good arguments against it?

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...

×
×
  • Create New...