Jump to content
Drella

Going Against K Aff's.

Recommended Posts

How would you answer a K aff? Mostly what are neg positions you could make?

 

I know the big one is Framework, but other than that how do you answer it with more offense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a helpful link.

 

http://fuckyeahpolicydebate.com/post/45726751942/where-can-i-find-videos-of-performance-cases-also-how

 

I'm going to use this space to rant for a little bit while I give advice.

 

I actually freaking hate one of my coaches because she's all about framework. If you're good at running framework on the negative, that's completely fine, and you'll probably win rounds. But don't expect everyone to automatically be good at it, especially against a K aff. They see it so much that they will most likely not take any prep time before the 2AC to answer it. Literally, fuck people that want to run framework every time they hit a K aff. Fuck them. /end rant

 

Anyways, yes, you can run framework if you feel confident in your abilities. Another thing to do is to run a counter-advocacy. For instance, anthropocentrism is one of the most common ones because most K affs are about human oppression and are framed in terms of "dehumanization" and "bestialization". Capitalism is another one.

 

One really intriguing strategy that I heard about from JV-Novice Nationals (a college tournament) was that the neg ran a well-developed presumption argument. After the 1AC, the neg asked if the purpose of the speech act was to increase the education of those in the room. The affirmative said yes, and as a result, the negative gave the judges a flash drive with all of the books that the 1AC mentioned. During the speech, the negative argued that after the round, the judges could read through the material, so there's no reason to vote affirmative. The aff was apparently stunned by this (the neg ended up losing for different reasons, though).

 

One thing that I would like to do is to say that the affirmative isn't doing anything for the debate community if they got their preferred judge. The fact that they strike certain judges shows that they're just trying to win ballots instead of trying to change the opinions of the people that their speech acts are actually criticizing. It'd be hard to actually indict them on this, though, as it's hard to prove that they preferred a certain judge over another unless you got them to admit to it, which is unlikely.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i would go with another K. Any good K team will take you apart if you try to turn it into a policy debate. For example, with like a wheelchairs aff, run anthro and say that the language for human oppression is created when we can assert superiority over animals. Or for a racism aff, run cap. Or for an anthro aff (moment of silence) run Nietzsche. 

 

didnt even see phantom's post...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im still way better then you so just stop.

duel me! haha and im sure you are, but let's give credit where credit is due

 

by the way, lets not do this because Drella should get their question answered instead of us arguing

 

Saara

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually king k affs are easier to win. Most k affs are about the black/white binary as of this year and the year before. I remember centennial mk having this asian counteradvocacy that says that the black/white identity excludes asians and that's bad for x,y,z. I remember a round with matt casas kritiking why this binary is bad because it doesn't include people for mixed identities, like an mexican asian girl and in the case of matt casas, it was being an mexican white man

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually king k affs are easier to win. Most k affs are about the black/white binary as of this year and the year before. I remember centennial mk having this chow k that says that the black/white identity excludes asians and that's bad for x,y,z. I remember a round with matt casas kritiking why this binary is bad because it doesn't include people for mixed identities, like an mexican asian girl and in the case of matt casas, it was being an mexican white man

You mean the one that he posted... on this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the common thread of everything mentioned in this thread is to criticize their methodology and assumptions -

 

framework arguments basically mean that their method is poor for education or fails to create political change.

kritikal arguments will try to show that their 1ac speech doesn't create the change they try to create because they ignore other structures - like anthro or marxism versus most k aff's.

 

another option is to run a counterplan that solves the kritikal arguments. an example (although a poor one) of this is an "abolish the prison-industrial complex" counterplan versus a wilderson aff. the cp claims to solve the harms of the 1ac (black social death or something) with the net benefit of not increasing transportation infrastructure (ableism, automobility, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or go with a presumption strat. Win that the resolution is racist/sexist/etc. and that as the negative, by negating it, we solve for racism

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually king k affs are easier to win. Most k affs are about the black/white binary as of this year and the year before. I remember centennial mk having this asian counteradvocacy that says that the black/white identity excludes asians and that's bad for x,y,z. I remember a round with matt casas kritiking why this binary is bad because it doesn't include people for mixed identities, like an mexican asian girl and in the case of matt casas, it was being an mexican white man

 

Can anyone give some information on the chow k or whatever it's called? I've been looking for this sort of counteradvocacy and if someone could point me in the general direction of what authors I need to research, that would really helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When in doubt, read politics/executive order counterplan. Works against every k aff (trust me, i've won a ton of rounds on xo/ptx).

While i've done(and won) that strat several times against topical affs w/ kritikal advantages, i think he's looking for shtuff on "let's metaphorically affirm ourselves as pirates" kind of affs.

 

When in doubt, Cap root cause.  Just have a 150 page file on all of the things cap is the root cause of.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy idea I just had, why not bring an animal, a dog, a cat, and etc., and say that by exlcuding their voices, it's anthro, and root cause it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i would go with another K. Any good K team will take you apart if you try to turn it into a policy debate. For example, with like a wheelchairs aff, run anthro and say that the language for human oppression is created when we can assert superiority over animals. Or for a racism aff, run cap. Or for an anthro aff (moment of silence) run Nietzsche. 

 

didnt even see phantom's post...

 

I disagree. Teams that run K affs understand the K (or at least they should). What's more, they should understand how certain K arguments can solve the root cause of their impacts, like how cap probably solves poverty, etc. If you like Ks, run Ks. NO FEAR!

 

If you're a policy neg team, expect the aff to have a few tricks when it comes to answering your arguments. Is there a way the aff will frame the debate that will minimize or eliminate your impacts? What about a crafty answer to a counterplan or PIC something?

Thinking about these things before your round starts will make you feel less out of your element when the round starts. Make sure that you're running things that you know.

 

Another tip: If you're hitting a performance aff and they have a narrative or anything that's not cards, FLOW IT. There's not really a right way to flow here, you just have to make sure that you're writing things down.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i would go with another K. Any good K team will take you apart if you try to turn it into a policy debate.

 

Guess why certain teams are called K teams? Because they're better at the K than policy (meaning they are probably not going to "take you apart" if you debate at policy if you're better than them on it)! "Any good K team" is going to be better at Ks than a team that leans towards policy. Your chances of winning are highest when you control the ground of the debate, so I find it inadvisable to run/go for a K against a K team when they are clearly going to be better versed in kritikal literature and debating [kritiks] in general. K affs don't require any kind of special strategy most of the time and the same advice that applies to policy affs applies to them, do what you're best at. That being said...

 

If they have a plan text that they will defend (asking in 1AC cross-ex usually clears that up pretty quickly), there isn't going to be a good internal link to any of your impacts on framework. I think it's fairly easy to win that kritiks should be allowed in debate, which is all the aff really has to do since they just have kritikal advantages based off of a (usually) topical plan text. For more kritikal affs (advocacy statements, not being resolutional, performance, etc.), if you feel comfortable on framework and you're able to win your links, it's not a bad idea to at least put it in the 1NC. As much as everyone says things like "performance teams are all prepped out on framework and won't lose," policy teams that run framework against them are also prepped out on framework and win on it all of the time. If you're good at theory, framework is definitely your friend (but only on k affs that actually link to it, people think k affs are more radical and unfair than they actually are, for some reason).

 

Against a middle of the road K aff (like Disabilities), if you're policy-oriented, it's probably best to find a good CP that can solve a substantial part of the case, a DA, and Util and/or answers to whatever impact framing stuff they'll put on the DA. K teams are going to try to kritik the DA and util, or the methodology behind it, whatever, but if your CP solves, judges will be much more dismissive of those arguments (and you're not going to link to them as much). If the CP solves, you'll also be given much more leeway on Util, since lives saved by avoiding the DA will probably outweigh any kritikal solvency deficits they try to put on the CP (i.e. feds key to send message, method of using CP to avoid DA proves you don't solve for the ideology, whatever). States + ptx is common, XO can help you avoid solvency deficits like "we need to send a message via the federal government to the people" or something, new/special CPs can catch the other team off guard so their solvency deficits will be worse and easier to overcome. Also, most judges probably lean towards util good so if that's your thing, you have home court advantage (I'm assuming as a policy person, you're not prefing really K judges). Also, well-researched PICs are awesome if it's against a specific aff.

 

Finally... running kritiks against kritikal teams. This generally only works if you are kritikal yourself, otherwise you lose the advantage of doing what you're comfortable with and the fact that most judges lean towards policy. If you're kritikal, I'm assuming you already know how to beat K affs anyway, since you probably run them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy idea I just had, why not bring an animal, a dog, a cat, and etc., and say that by exlcuding their voices, it's anthro, and root cause it

 

haha you don't need an animal

 

just find speciesm/anthro stuff and say that anthro is the key internal link to oppression 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess why certain teams are called K teams? Because they're better at the K than policy (meaning they are probably not going to "take you apart" if you debate at policy if you're better than them on it)! 

Nah I disagree here. Just because they're a kritikal aff, doesn't mean they're going to be bad at debating policy or framework. Usually the teams that do K aff strats, in my experience at least, are the ones that are just overall really good debaters. Being better at the K doesn't make you less good at framework and policy. And still: framework is the most common answer to these affirmatives. They know it forwards and backwards. If their aff is worth anything, they already have built in answers and turns and they start out ahead of the game on this debate. I think that going for a PIC and a K and case is going to be the best bet; otherwise you're starting out behind and fighting an uphill battle on framework. Note that this is just usually true: some teams are just really really good at framework on K affs, and if that's your thing, by all means go for it! I agree that you should do what you do best - but don't let that keep you from learning to do more than what you already do best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Teams that run K affs understand the K (or at least they should). What's more, they should understand how certain K arguments can solve the root cause of their impacts, like how cap probably solves poverty, etc. If you like Ks, run Ks. NO FEAR!

 

If you're a policy neg team, expect the aff to have a few tricks when it comes to answering your arguments. Is there a way the aff will frame the debate that will minimize or eliminate your impacts? What about a crafty answer to a counterplan or PIC something?

Thinking about these things before your round starts will make you feel less out of your element when the round starts. Make sure that you're running things that you know.

 

Another tip: If you're hitting a performance aff and they have a narrative or anything that's not cards, FLOW IT. There's not really a right way to flow here, you just have to make sure that you're writing things down.

Ok ruth and puffles, i get it. The person is clearly a novice who isnt exactly hitting SPC's narrative stuff. My point is that going Anthro root cause or Cap root cause or Nietzsche would be comparatively better than a bunch of process counterplans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against a middle of the road K aff (like Disabilities), if you're policy-oriented, it's probably best to find a good CP that can solve a substantial part of the case, a DA, and Util and/or answers to whatever impact framing stuff they'll put on the DA. K teams are going to try to kritik the DA and util, or the methodology behind it, whatever, but if your CP solves, judges will be much more dismissive of those arguments (and you're not going to link to them as much). If the CP solves, you'll also be given much more leeway on Util, since lives saved by avoiding the DA will probably outweigh any kritikal solvency deficits they try to put on the CP (i.e. feds key to send message, method of using CP to avoid DA proves you don't solve for the ideology, whatever). States + ptx is common, XO can help you avoid solvency deficits like "we need to send a message via the federal government to the people" or something, new/special CPs can catch the other team off guard so their solvency deficits will be worse and easier to overcome. Also, most judges probably lean towards util good so if that's your thing, you have home court advantage (I'm assuming as a policy person, you're not prefing really K judges). Also, well-researched PICs are awesome if it's against a specific aff.

I don't mean any disprespect, and i know you guys have been doing this longer than me (and you're a lot better) i just think that running XO, ptx, and util against a K aff is kind of a dream come true. I've only ran RTC (i know everyone says it sucks) for one tourney, but if someone did that, they basically give us the ballot. On util, we'd say that this oppressive mentality turns people into tools who have to rot and die because the govt. says "well....there are bigger impacts". Or on an anthro aff, util would get killed. For XO, we'd read like 5 cards in how a process focus is a solvency deficit, and on PTX we'd go for Apocalyptic Rhetoric + complexity. SFA ES (probably the best team at berkeley in JV) did the same against us. We went undefeated on the aff but we were closest to losing on stuff like Taoism and DnG state PIC. Not ptx+xo+util

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main problem i had with thinking of strategies against K affs when i was first starting competitive debate was that i didn't know how diverse my offense could be. at camp, they pretty much just said read framework and have offense, but didn't go into detail as to what that was.

 

here is a list of basic go-to positions that i have ready for K affs (primarily without plantexts, because otherwise you get your Ptx DAs and PICs):

 

Parametrics: while this only works if they don't have any kind of advocacy statement, i think this is better than framework because it doesn't link nearly as hard to all their limits bad/exclusion offense.

 

Topicality: not framework, but reading T on one word that their discussion/advocacy violates still avoids most of the exclusion offense while still getting access to Stasis arguments (Shivly, etc)--you could probably use the same Transportation Infrastructure T shells and blocks that you would against a policy aff, but you'd need to put extra focus into the "we don't link to case offense" portion of the debate.

 

Cede the political: seperate offcase as a DA to their method--Check Gonzaga's latest framework file and SDI's 2010 Anti-politics file for evidence.

 

Cap K: it's a Cap K--most teams will be prepped for it, but if the 1AC doesn't revolve around some form of criticism of capitalism/western globalization, then you will still probably have good internals to the 1AC impacts.

 

Speaking for Others: simple offense against methods of political advocacies on behalf of less privilaged people. i read the Allcoff card with some extensions.

 

Baudrillard: I'm by no means a Baudrillard hack, but his shadow-boxing things are easier to understand than a lot of other lit of his you see floating around. this can be tacked on as a solvency argument/case turn. the file that includes this evidence is floating around on Scribd somewhere or you could probably trade since everyone and their mothers has it.

 

Attchison & Pannetta: this evidence is read a lot as either offense on Framework or as a Net benefit to a Tounament CP. this is an easy-to-understand argument against the use of debate space for creating social change, and can be found on many of the college wikis.

 

PIKs: i don't have one that i frequently read (besides the "Fuck" K), but some 1-card, dirty word Ks are ALWAYS a good idea to have on you for extra offense.

 

There are many other positions you can take instead of these: i know i heard Nietzsche and Anthro mentioned, both of which are probably responsive to more K affs than not (Nietzsche, like framework, might be one that is a commonly prepped argument by the aff). Depending on the nature of the Aff, you could possibly read some Deleuzian kritik of things like race or something, or just impact turn methods they use (geneology, narratives, performance, debate activism). the rest comes down to what the 1AC impacts are and just having defense to them.

 

My best advice is the same that you'll get from most of the better judges: debate the way that you are most comfortable. Don't abandon framework for a tricky Deleuze K that you don't understand, because the Aff (assuming they're decent) will steam-roll you. at the same time, if you are someone who is comfortable with reading the K, play them on their turf. also, you're not limited to one style or another: my ideal 1NC would be Parametrics, Cede the political, Cap K, Some case specific K or PIK, and some case Defense

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...