Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dkim

Kritik Overview

Recommended Posts

how do you create an overview for a kritik when you're running one as neg? could you include what an overview would look like? (apparently my 7 minute overview on cap was tiresome)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you create an overview for a kritik when you're running one as neg? could you include what an overview would look like? (apparently my 7 minute overview on cap was tiresome)

 

Yeah, 7 minutes is a little much. Depending on who you talk to, and the depth of your kritik I think it's safe to say it should be between 1-4 minutes. Here's how I structure my overviews

 

Link

Impact

Turns case

Alt

Alt solves case (optional)

 

Now, some people feel like overviews are unnesessary in the 2NC and instead say you should have the listed items on the line-by-line. However, It's good to have a summary of what your argument is and how it interacts with the aff. I personally feel it's key to have that at the top so it's blatant your argument isn't a generic K.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 7 minutes is a little much. Depending on who you talk to, and the depth of your kritik I think it's safe to say it should be between 1-4 minutes. Here's how I structure my overviews

 

Link

Impact

Turns case

Alt

Alt solves case (optional)

 

Now, some people feel like overviews are unnesessary in the 2NC and instead say you should have the listed items on the line-by-line. However, It's good to have a summary of what your argument is and how it interacts with the aff. I personally feel it's key to have that at the top so it's blatant your argument isn't a generic K.

 

Whoa, I'm sorry but 4 minutes is overkill and then some. That's literally half a speech of no ink on the flow, other than new analysis on 1nc cards. This is every 1ar's dream, for the 2nc to start ranting on the K overview instead of putting a 3:1 answer ratio on the line-by-line. Overviews should be less than a minute long, preferably no more than 45 seconds for any given speech. Specifically for the 2NC having it any longer starts to take away the advantage of the block.

 

When giving an overview you want to highlight the scenario as briefly as possible explaining how exactly your argument works, then address the impact debate on a comparative level ie magnitude, probability, timeframe, reversibility etc. Practice timing your overviews, there's nothing bad about pre-writting your overviews (if fact it's highly encouraged) just make sure you add context before your speech.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 7 minutes is a little much. Depending on who you talk to, and the depth of your kritik I think it's safe to say it should be between 1-4 minutes.

Now, some people feel like overviews are unnesessary in the 2NC and instead say you should have the listed items on the line-by-line. However, It's good to have a summary of what your argument is and how it interacts with the aff. I personally feel it's key to have that at the top so it's blatant your argument isn't a generic K.

 

Four minutes is way too much. High schoolers have this weird habit of giving massive overviews where half the stuff is irrelevant and then are left with too little time to actually answer things. I think it's best to pick just one or two ideas that are central to your argument and write out a clear/persuasive/clever explanation of them in the context of a debate, lasting, say, 35 to 50 seconds. The point of an overview is to make arguments that you will then reference in many different places on the line by line -- it's okay to devote a sentence or two to summarizing your overall position (especially when your judge might be less familiar with your K), but efficiency is important, and if they didn't get what you were saying during the 1NC, then you have bigger problems. Also - edit your overviews. Re-edit them. Forget about them for a week, and then re-edit them again. If something isn't clear, make it clear. If something could be articulated in fewer words, then trim away.

 

That said, overviews ideally shouldn't just be a pre-written paragraph you just read at the top of every 2NC you give. They should also be highlighting argument interaction (or lack thereof). This might not be as true as it once was, but a lot of 2ACs in high school will just read a bunch of cards that all make really similar claims, and leave entire portions of the K unanswered. It can be awkward to point this out in the line by line, because you're talking about arguments that weren't made (there is, so to speak, no 'line' to put your response next to). The overview, then, is a perfect place to identify the 2AC's strategic mistakes, and implicate them. The problem, of course, is that you can't write a paragraph about the 2AC until it actually happens, and every 2AC looks different, so you kinda have to just kick it from your head sometimes. Additionally, the overview is a good place to characterize the aff in a way that sets up your K well, which can involve spinning the unique quirks of the aff as dangerous/new links/things you internal link turn. Prewritten generic overviews are a good start, but as you develop in your K debating, you should eventually grow out of complete reliance on them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accidentally double posted so I'm going to add something. I think this:

 

Here's how I structure my overviews

 

Link

Impact

Turns case

Alt

Alt solves case (optional)

 

is a bad idea, and really annoying to judge. Whenever you make an arg on an overview, you should ask yourself if there's a good reason to put it there and not on the line by line, and if there isn't, then keep it off. Turns case? Sure. Alt solves the case? Also probably fine. But if the 2AC makes solvency takeouts against your alt, you will probably have to re-explain your alt on the line-by-line anyway, making the overview stuff redundant. (Or you will just say "cross apply from the overview" and move on without actually making relevant, specific analysis. Don't do that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a 4 bucket model which is described by Scotty P....and is on the NDTCEDA listserv. Its interesting. (although arguably a bit excessive.) however, a decent way to think about K arguments.

 

I think the main point is to shift the debate....perhaps turning their so called offense or defense. Also, I think extending what they are likely to have dropped--or articulating a key distinction they are missing which

makes most of their arguments go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it depends on the K

If the K is really hard to understand then a 2-3 min overview is justified

If it's something along the lines of security or cap then keep it short

I write out two separate overviews usually:

one if I want to keep the K as an option - only read the impacts you'll go for (45 sec - 2 min)

and one when the other team messes up - articulate EVERY impact to the k, it screws over the 1AR trying to answer every impact in the 2nc (2-3 min)

IMPORTANT: if the kritik takes up more than the 2nc, then you have a serious problem

 

Generic Structure:

Link - don't read new cards, save it for the perm debate

Impacts - Carded unless it's common sense, so to speak

Alt - make sure the judge understands exactly what the alt does

 

Alt solves case

Be careful with this argument unless you're sure you have a fallback plan in case the neg catches it.

If you're going to use unorthodox wording, make sure to repeat that same wording in the 2NR so the judge doesn't go "when did you say that?"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do it like you do a DA.

-O/Ws case

-Turns case

-Solves case.

 

Make all your K-cheaters (ROTB, X comes first, The USFG is the government of mexico) on the line by line.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my overview is like story time i explain the k simply and then go down the flow answering argument. My goal is link analysis.

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...