Jump to content
SubcomandanteMarcos

Topicality As A Kritikal Aff

Recommended Posts

How do kritikal affs that don't use the USFG handle Topicality arguments? Specific to the LA topic, how would you handle "substantially", "economic engagement", and "increase" debates. I figure there would be some overlap between these, but I figure that context might help clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do kritikal affs that don't use the USFG handle Topicality arguments? Specific to the LA topic, how would you handle "substantially", "economic engagement", and "increase" debates. I figure there would be some overlap between these, but I figure that context might help clarify.

Well, usually if the argument is T-USfg, it's called framework. They answer this in a couple of different ways (at least I do). Firstly, some sort of we meet claim. Then they use alternative definitions, such as: The USfg is the people, should indicates an action is desirable, resolved is to reduce by mental analysis.

 

Then you answer the standards -- for example, limits are impossible or limits are bad and violent, fairness is just disguise for government control, rules are arbitrary. 

Another argument you can make is that your affirmative doesn't preclude limits -- but the limits should be set to include you. 

 

At the education/fairness level, you can make arguments about why your education is important, why policymaking/policymaking education is bad.

 

Then, people read offense against the framework. I read a butler card, darder 10, and burke 7 as offense against framework. These arguments consist of things like -- censoring critical thinking is bad, etc.

 

Despite what you may think, it is extremely hard to beat critical no-plantext affs by reading framework because they (most likely unlike you) have a lot of experience debating framework (as it is the most common argument they hit on the aff).

 

A lot of critical affirmatives will have embedded arguments against framework in the 1AC. Additionally, lots of critical affirmatives will win because of the offense that they derive against framework.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the whole framework thing, I was more wondering if the same type of arg works for other words of the resolution, or what else to say if not

Framework can be based off of the definitions of any of the words in the rez -- at camp, I hit multiple definitions in each framework argument, usually each one contained definitions for: USfg, resolved, should, substantially, and economic engagement

 

Edit: Okay, I think I get what you're saying.

 

If I were to hit framework based off another definition, I would either counterdefine that word, but I'd also rely a lot on my critical offense and impact d on the framework argument itself. Winning the "we meet" is a long shot in any case.

 

Sometimes I will say in the 2AC, here's an example of a USfg action that we would like done, and that's topical.

 

For example:

 

====We meet: Poetry is a form of affirmation – that~’s Ranciere and Barsky. We~’re poetically affirming the USfg should give gitmo back ====

 

====That~’s T – ====

 

====Returning Gitmo to Cuba is engagement.====

**CHA 7 ~~[**Council on Hemispheric Affairs 07, a [[Washington, D.C.-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.]]-based [[non-governmental organization-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization]] monitoring Latin American affairs, especially within the context of [[united States-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States]] Foreign Policy produces its bi-weekly publication, the Washington Report on the Hemisphere, to various universities and organizations such as the [[Organization of American States-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States]](OAS). Directed by Larry Birns, a senior grade public affairs officer for the [[united Nations Economic Commission for Latin America-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Economic_Commission_for_Latin_America]], March 16, 2007, "A Constructive Plot to Return Guantánamo Bay to Cuba in the Near Future", [[http://www.politicalaffairs.net/a-constructive-plot-to-return-guant-namo-bay-to-cuba-in-the-near-future/-http://www.politicalaffairs.net/a-constructive-plot-to-return-guant-namo-bay-to-cuba-in-the-near-future/]]~~]

Another good reason for Guantánamo~’s reversion back to Havana is that such an act would

AND

constructive engagement and the orderly assessment of a long list of disruptive issues. 

 

====And economic====

**Vitez no date **~~[Osmond Vitez – works for Demand Media a business corporation intending to define economic resources, "Economic Definition of the Four Factors of Production", [[http://smallbusiness.chron.com/economic-definition-four-factors-production-3941.html-http://smallbusiness.chron.com/economic-definition-four-factors-production-3941.html]]~~]

Land is the economic resource encompassing natural resources found within a nation~’s economy. This

AND

nations to improve the production processes for turning natural resources into consumer goods.

 

 

====Counter-interp: ====

Resolved is to reduce by mental analysis, **Random House 11** (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolve)

 

Should indicates desirability, **OED 11** ([[http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should?region=us-http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should?region=us]])

 

**USFG = the people**

**Howard, 5** (Adam, "Jeffersonian Democracy: Of the People, By the People, For the People," http://www.byzantinecommunications.com/adamhoward/homework/highschool/jeffersonian.html, 5/27)

 

Ideally, then, under Jeffersonian Democracy, the government is the people, and people is the government. Therefore, if a particular government ceases to work for the good of the people, the people may and ought to change that government or replace it. Governments are established to protect the people~’s rights using the power they get from the people.

 

 

Substantially is : being largely but not wholly that which is specified <a substantial lie> **Merriam **

**Webster 11**

 

We meet our interp: as the people we say that our reading of the poetry is desirable – we largely but not wholly relate to the resolution

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends largely on a case by case basis, assuming someone is running this 'whole rez' framework on you (as in T-USFG) they run all the defs (Latin America, Economic Engagement, Resolved, etc.), and your generic answer to framework will just depend on the aff itself. If it's an aff that doesn't concern itself with the topic much at all, then I'll probably K my way out of most of it and not really focus on the specific definitions but moreso on arguments saying that resolutional debate is good. Other affs I think provide counter definitions that jive with their aff depending on what word and which aff. Miro's block is a good example of how you can have counter interpretations of words that allow for your aff to engage the topic in nontraditional ways. Example I always use is some college affs last year had intepretations of energy production as human energy and used it to justify running like Artaud performance affs or blackness affs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on the team. A project team or race team is probably less inclined to run a we meet claim especially on "economic". I would imagine they impact d fairness claims and they will always impact turn education. We meet might be an arg, but the voters and standards are where K teams primarily focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight shift: what about critical Affs running through the government? Ending/repealing bad policies and such; sort of like switch side debate I guess (while the neg is defending the squo, they are also defending EEngagement.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight shift: what about critical Affs running through the government? Ending/repealing bad policies and such; sort of like switch side debate I guess (while the neg is defending the squo, they are also defending EEngagement.)

I don't exactly understand what you're saying in the second half of your question -- but k affs running through the government answer t a little differently, mostly to do with what they emphasize. 

 

If the aff runs through the govt, then it will really emphasize the We meet part of the topicality, and the counter-interp (what I call the link debate of the T), then spend sometime answering some of the standards, and then *maybe* reading some offense. That's in contrast to a no-plan text aff which relies a ton on the offense against T.

  • Upvote 1

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...