Jump to content
Bullsinthebronx

How Should An Overview On A Kritik Look Like?

Recommended Posts

Most of the time the way that I have formatted my 2NC overview I usually do my Impact/link work there and when I want to go into depth on that specific debate (link or impact) I sometimes sound repetitive. 

 

How can I fix this? -- is there another way to do that overview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way you could do it is give a brief (non extending, overview on the kritik) and then extend each part of the Kritik and do the work there.

 

Ie. "On to the kritik, which is basically saying [xyz] -- now extend [link author] -- that's the link (explain warrants) -- They say no link, but [xyz] -- Next, extend [impact author] for the impact (explain warrants) -- they said impact turn, but [xyz]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link analysis on perm

Impact/turns the case on top

Alt solvency on alt solvency takeouts (if none then after impact)

Tricks/roll of ballot on top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go straight line-by-line. I don't bother to read an overview unless the k requires a lot of explanation, and even then it's under 35 seconds. The closest thing I do for other ks is the impact block which I read as an answer to "case o/w" going down the flow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how helpful my advice will be considering i've only written a few K overviews, but what i usually do is either have an explanation of the K and evidence extensions, then just cross apply when necessary or i do what ARGogate said and go straight to the line by line with extensions of the 1NC evidence and A2 what ever the 2AC said. although i only really do that with basic K's like cap and stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time the way that I have formatted my 2NC overview I usually do my Impact/link work there and when I want to go into depth on that specific debate (link or impact) I sometimes sound repetitive. 

 

How can I fix this? -- is there another way to do that overview?

 

A lot of the responses to your question are very tech-oriented (what impact analysis you should make, key arguments to answer, etc), but what is especially important is that you can articulate the thesis and "story" of your argument and make explain how the philosophy applies to the debate and the affirmative specifically. Things like historical examples of the logic of the Aff triggering your impacts or even in-round examples (if that's the way your K operates) provide a context for understanding the kritik. These tend to be not just rhetorically powerful, but also allow for the judge to better understand your argument. Little feels worse than a judge dropping you because they didn't understand either how your impacts operated with the 1AC or the link to the Affirmative or how your alt operates.

 

tl;dr -- do technical analysis, but be sure to give context to your explanations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give an outline of what the kritik is. How they link, why the link triggers the impact, and a little impact calc. Then, role of the ballot, then go to the LBL and answer perms, no links, and things like that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A different (although not necessarily better) approach that I've seen aggravate judges less is to restrict the overview to quick explanation if necessary and any other arguments that you absolutely can't fit into the line by line - it seems to hurt winning percentage when the judge has to do a lot of work to see what args in the overview apply later on in the flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally you should have two 2NC overviews - long ones for teams that'd don't really engage the K and judges who might need the explanation - and short ones for more even debates.

 

I try to keep my overviews very simple and only extend the basic 1NC arguments using a sentence or two per card

 

[Explain Link] - That's XXX in XX

[Explain Impact] - That's XXX in XX

[Explain Alt] - That's XXX in XX

If there are any implicit 1NC framing arguments are claims that I want to bring up then I would do them where appropriate.

 

After that you want to go on the line-by-line to answer specific arguments.

 

With certain types of judges, the line-by-line/overview dichotomy isn't as important. Judges more accustomed to performance debate or go to schools known more for being K schools are more down with the idea of meta-analysis and bringing up aff arguments where they apply on the overview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Link analysis on perm

Impact/turns the case on top

Alt solvency on alt solvency takeouts (if none then after impact)

Tricks/roll of ballot on top

 

 

 

I like this....with how that effects the line by line (i.e. the types of arguments it answers).  

 

I would put the distinction that makes the difference on top.  Thats what makes all their arguments irrelevant or defense or whatever.  If you aren't making the argument.  In addition you should make the offense/defense distinction as well.

 

You want to try to keep it to 60 or so seconds if possible.  2 minutes is probably too long.

 

Gandolf/Aubtin's method is legit too.

 

While I was extending....I would want to IMPLICATE the cards RE: how that implicated the ballot, the round, their arguments.  This seems a slightly more time efficient use of the time.

 

Too much, extend, extend, extend, and you sound like you don't know whats going on.  Or like you've never run the K before....and you're doing the generic thing.  

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...