Jump to content
ZalmayKhalilzad

Good Kritiks For Novices

Recommended Posts

In order to give novices at my school an upper hand over others, I'm planning on cutting a K for them, but I wanna keep it simple and not too complex.

So what are some good Ks for novices to use?

 

As of right now I have Biopower, Heidegger, and Schopenhauer so will any of the three be good for novices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your best Ks for Novices are Cap and Security (Reps Ks like Terror Talk or Pan are also effective). Biopower and Heidegger can both be run by novices, but I don't suggest it because generally it requires a degree of analytical skill and a more intensive knowledge of the literature, so when novices run it it usually becomes super bastardized and shitty, which A) is bad for future debates because they receive a fundamentally flawed understanding of the kritik and it's use in the round B) kills them in CX and rebuttals when they have to explain cards that have been super powertagged/simplified for their own sake and C) is bad because no judge really wants to see two novices rereading tags in order to explain evidence.

 

Schopenhauer is an absolute no for novices. If not for the difficulty of the argument, the fact that novice judges tend to not be the cream of the crop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap, Nietzsche, Security are all great novice Ks. They're much easier to understand. Biopower is pretty simple. Schopenhauer would be great since a lot of novices like asteroid deflection/detection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap, Nietzsche, Security are all great novice Ks. They're much easier to understand. Biopower is pretty simple. Schopenhauer would be great since a lot of novices like asteroid deflection/detection.

 

I have to disagree. Like Ganondorf91 said, kritiks that are Nietzschean or Foucauldian based are going to be hard for novices to understand well enough to articulate a nonbastardized meaning which (1) might piss off a judge who knows what they're (trying) to talk about or (2) will confuse the hell out of novice judges. [Note: calling biopower an easy concept reveals a probable misunderstanding in itself.] Also, as far as Schopenhauer goes, I'm not sure many novice judges are going to take kindly to that degree of nihilistic spouting.

 

I personally started out with security for my first kritik (Dillion based), and have done the same with my novice. But to be fully honest, I feel as though writing an entire K and blocks for novice is going to taint their knowledge of running a K and/or the literature their reading. It may be best to power them up with hardline policy so that they can receive a fully functioning understanding of k's later.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned Capitalism, Nietzsche, and Foucault......however:

 

This issue primarily comes down to 6 key issues--which are unrelated to the issue of selection:

1. how well you know it.

2. how well you explain it

3. how many practice debates you have.....how many practice debates (both of these can be partial, just focusing on the K--ie practice speeches or partial speeches all the way through)

4. how much your novices understand about the issue of nuance & distinction & detail in terms of understanding an argument.

5. how much attention they give the argument...in terms of seeking out its depths & details.

 

Some arguments are simple to understand....and can go quite deeply (ie a rabbit hole of sorts.....which is good for exploring the complexity & mystery & detail of what the author is talking about). Sometimes the issues aren't as complex as we make them out to be.

 

I think prioritizing your info transference into 3 categories (or buckets):

1. Gotta knows/gotta explains

2. Nice to knows

3. Good background material

 

I don't see how biopower is much different from the security K, after all the later is incredibly grounded in the former (certainly as much difference as Capitalism, Neoliberalism, Globalization, & Empire--all of which are basically the same argument). The main difference is what people will throw at you.....typically.

 

Plus their understandings of 6 key issues:

1. how the alternative functions & what it does & how to explain it.....and how to think about it and how its strategic over the long haul

2. how to answer the perm & how to think about it.

3. the framework debate & the function of the ballot debate (or the function/purpose of the judge)

4. The realism good debate

5. the other common answers to their K

6. How to rhetorically link a K to the case. These are in some ways far, far better than a carded because they are hard for the perm to answer back ((although they can also be grounded in evidence--ie work together as a cohesive argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys know, I'm not having any novices compete in the "novice" section of a tournament, or at least giving them the option not to. (Harder debate is better debate)The reason why I'm having them run Ks is that not that many people in my area are good at responding to them, or just flat out don't have the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Harder debate is better debate)The reason why I'm having them run Ks is that not that many people in my area are good at responding to them, or just flat out don't have the cards.

Does anyone else see the contradiction inherent in this?

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you give them a critique just because no one else has answers to it or knows how to answer it? There's no way they're going to properly understand how to run it if they never hit any actual competition. I don't know, that kind of reasoning just seems kinda sketch to me.

 

Also, if your circuit doesn't have any debaters who can answer k's, it probably doesn't have any judges who understand them either.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else see the contradiction inherent in this?

 

Yeah, I understand the contradiction, (Using another teams lack of knowledge for an easy win, even when I said harder is better) but it's still gonna help them deal with larger variety of teams and learn more, than just going hardcore policy style or just DA, T, Case debate in novice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally i would go against the idea of novices running Ks but you'll teach one to them anyways. Cap is preferable, it has a very clear thesis and really understandable links, security is ok, it helps to lead novices into more kritikal theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a very educational kritik would be coercion.

 

Most would disagree with the quality (or lack thereof) of the argument. I do as well.

 

But it is a good introductory argument to what kritiks are and has a very simple thesis: Taxation violates property rights which spills over into other civil rights.

 

This opens up the discussion of whether or not property rights or equality should be prioritized and allows for a much broader philosophical discussion that can make other kritiks easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cuz i have boss blocks. i may have misinterpreted the original post. i thought he was making a kritik for njfls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cuz i have boss blocks. i may have misinterpreted the original post. i thought he was making a kritik for njfls

 

Clearly u are overconceited....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that for novices (and all beginning K debaters really) it all comes down to the lit. i see a lot of people talking about Cap as being a good start, and while i agree with that since Cap was kindof my big thing this year, it really depends on what kind of Cap K you're talking about. obviously Zizek's stuff is going to need a lot more explaining for inexperienced K debaters because from their perspective he's hardly speaking english when he talks about the Real and the Lack and that Psychoanalysis thing, vs authors like Kovel and Herod who seem to explain approaches to Cap differently, but also in easier to understand rhetoric. This is probably a more universal thing with other Ks too.

 

also, even though i might get some hate for this, i think the Schopenhauer K (as an impact turn) is actually really great for Novices. one of our teams did really well at Novice State with it, even with a more rudimentary understanding. basically, i feel like any judge that is really Tab Ras and open to Ks will be fine with it, where as those judges that seem not to like that stuff tend not to evaluate Ks (very well at least) anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always bring the Cap K down to a DeDev level to make it less complicated.

 

Or just kick out of the alt in the 2NR and go for a Cap K dedev scenario ;)

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...