Jump to content
Dust46

What To Expect When Running A K Aff In Ld?

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

I've been doing policy for a couple of years but this year i just wanted to try LD for a couple of tournaments. Im in the Cali circuit and intend to run a K aff at Presentation and CPS this year. Alot of LD kids at my school tell me that running a K aff in LD is very different than running it in Policy. What's really different? Is there anyone else that ran a K aff in LD and can tell me their experience? I know that LD has alot more theory and that some judges aren't open to it but other than those stuff, is there anything else to expect? 

 

 

Also on a side note, i also intend to go 1 off K when i'm neg. How does that work out in LD? 

 

Thanks in advance for all responses 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread here is about a very similar question. I've copied what IMO are the best answers.
 

I suggest you search the site. There are some very good lectures on Ks that I'm sure have been posted (though I'm not positive how good the generic lectures will be, the specific ones at least are often great). Although these will have been made with policy debate in mind, most everything should still be applicable.

There are two main exceptions that I can think of:

1. You'll need to have a stronger philosophical grounding of your AC than in policy debate. Your AC is your lifeblood in LD because after that you are debating from behind in terms of speaking times. Being able to get as much power as you can out of those first 6 minutes is absolutely critical. That means that you need an AC which can respond to a HUGE variety of possible NCs or Ks, and to have a strong offensive justification for each part of your case.

Generally, my preferred method of making a broadly useful AC is to

A. focus the debate onto something that I'll be able to debate better than my opponents. For example, on the individuals in need resolution 2 years ago I used psychology and neuroscience to argue that people naturally feel obligated when they see individuals suffering (mirror neurons, etc) and spent a large chunk of time arguing that human desires are intrinsically good. Since most wannabe philosophers suck at science this strategy was golden and I eased through the contention level of every debate I had. That frees up time in later speeches to invest in other things, and sticks your opponent with fewer options.

B. go deeper into metaethics than my opponent will. The more foundational assumptions that your affirmative challenges, the more likely it is that you'll be able to cross apply your AC to counter your opponents arguments without even trying. That saves speaking time and results in easy wins. (This is a good idea on the negative as well but has more impact when you're aff because of the time skew.) This route isn't always viable, however, sadly.

2. You need to exploit the speaking times when you're on the negative. Just think of what would suck the most to give a 1AR against, and then do that (except in a less obviously abusive form, if you're good at being creatively evil).

Both of these apply to LD debate more broadly as well as to K debating, but they're facets of LD debate that you'll need to keep in mind when reviewing the policy lectures.

Best of luck to you!


running critiques in ld is very different from running them in policy. this is primarily because (no offense to the ld community i love ld, but) ld judges tend to be much less progressive than most policy judges, and many ld judges like retaining the original structure and intent of ld debates, i.e. value-criterion, clearly labeled and ordered contentions, etc.
 
i'm not trying to brag in this next part; it's just so you know i know what i'm talking about and nobody calls me out for just saying random shit. i'm a policy debater, but in hgih school i did some ld as well. i went to two tournaments my junior year, both of which i won, one was a sems bid; this year i got to sems of an octas bid. i've beaten multiple toc champions and toc finalists in ld, all while running various critiques. i'm semi-coaching this girl from my state this year and making a speech doc for her telling her how to write k's that can be run in front of even the most conservative ld judges, and how to run them effectively. i love seeing more critique debating in ld, so i'd be more than willing to send this doc to you as well once i get it finished up. my email is jonplangel@gmail.com
 
watching the videos on critiques may be effective, but i'm not sure how much they'll apply because they'll be oriented towards policy, and in my experience ld critique debates operate much differently. in ld debates, debaters are much less prepared to go on the critique. i'm not saying they're less understood, but they don't have 2ac backfiles from coaches like policy debaters do. critiques you run in ld are much more likely to be answered with theory, and i've found there's a very specific way these arguments should be beaten. sorry i've been very shallow on the nature of utilizing critiques in ld in this post; i figure if you want a more extensive conversation email will be sufficient


Going for the K is often harder in LD than in policy.
[1] Imagine if the norm in policy was to have 3 minutes of K preempts in the 1AC.
That's what it's like in LD. In LD, an AC isn't 8 minutes of offense. It's more like 2 to 3 minutes of offense, a 2 to 3 minute defense of their ethics, and a minute or so of theory spikes defending their interpretation of the topic.
Here's 3 examples from 3 different debaters in quarterfinals of the TOC this year. And these are from debaters on the policy-like end of the LD spectrum. One of the TOC quarterfinalists the previous year had a case that was literally 100% theory spikes.
http://circuitdebate...nction 3.0.docx
http://circuitdebate.../TOC R5 AC.docx
http://circuitdebate...Courts Aff.docx
Source: circuitdebater.wikispaces.com
 
[2] LD judges tend not to like the K. I think this is symptomatic of the more general divide between analytic and continental philosophy. These two schools don't tend to like each other or agree very much. LDers are in the analytic camp, and most policy kritiks are on the continental or postmodern side. The common impression of K lit in LD is that it is unnecessarily complicated or obfuscatory, and if you look through the paradigms of LD judges on http://judgephilosop...wikispaces.com/ you'll see that almost any LD judge with a kritik section says something like "I'll only vote for the K if you explain it clearly."
 
None of this is to say kritiks can't be successful in LD. Jon Langel, who commented above, is one such success story. Also, there are far more policy judges/debaters in LD judge pools than vice versa, so if you're good on the K you'll have an easy win in rounds where you draw these judges. LDers aren't very good at responding to the kritik, usually from lack of experience.
 
One last note, in policy debate, most kritiks are read as a single offcase in a diverse strategy alongside a DA, CP, etc. In LD, one-off-kritik is probably the most common way of going for the K. Given the shorter speech times and larger number of preemptive AC arguments, you have to invest all 7 minutes into the K to make it viable. There's also more of a norm in LD against neg conditionality or giving oneself multiple strategic options to go for in the NR. Justafiably so, because the LD 1AR is a very hard speech already.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your ac needs to be designed solely to beat theory. 9 times out of 10 you will not be engaged on a substantive level.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your ac needs to be designed solely to beat theory. 9 times out of 10 you will not be engaged on a substantive level.

Too true. This goes for every AC but especially K affs. I think Cali is better about this than the midwest/northeast, but not by too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LDr 

 

Those cases you posted... dear god they are not laid out to look good at all. Why is it Policy has a generally accepted layout but not LD? 


 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@LDr 

 

Those cases you posted... dear god they are not laid out to look good at all. Why is it Policy has a generally accepted layout but not LD? 

 

Yeah, those cases are ugly. Bear in mind, though, that in policy there's usually not too many things that need to be in the AC. Plantext, advantages, maybe a separate solvency contention. LD cases usually have all number of arguments including definitions, theory spikes, contentions, ethics arguments, maybe a plantext (2 of the 3 cases I linked to had one), and usually some preempts to popular neg strats. Different cases will have different arguments in different proportions, so it's hard to fit a standardized structure. It used to be value/criterion/contentions, but people realized that the V-C structure didn't accurately represent a lot of arguments and started to move away from it. 

 

In other areas, LD actually has more structure than policy. Many LDers who read a krik or disad will explicitly state the function of each card "A. is uniqueness, CIR wont pass now. Smith 12" whereas most policy debaters don't. LDers also tend to number their case responses "1. ... 2. ... 3. ..." whereas many policy responses go "... And ... And ... And ...".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your ac needs to be designed solely to beat theory. 9 times out of 10 you will not be engaged on a substantive level.

So how would you format your aff then? I'm in a pretty traditional circuit and I've done a little bit of LD, but I have no clue how or where I would but theory preempts in a case. Also how does a K aff interact with value debate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the value is always morality

always

morality

 

Formatting Affs

-Don't be scared to be creative but do the same thing as people in your circuit do.  For example, if you say 'Contention 1:' and other people say 'My first contention is', bad judges won't flow your tagline because the template 'My first contention is' is the key for them to flow.

 

Theory Preempts

-If you're in a traditional circuit, you probably don't need to.

-Otherwise, think of it like an observation: put it in around the framework or as an underview.  Look at Tomasi's quarters TOC, or Adam Hoffman's TOC affs on http://circuitdebater.wikispaces.com for good examples of theory spikes

 

Value/Criterions

-They suck.

-Don't be afraid to get original.  I've had success infront of traditional judges valuing 'Pluralism' with the criterion of 'Minimizing Structural Violence' - like, just tie it to your case

 

If you want to see some LD K affs I've run infront of traditional judges, PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2013 at 10:28 PM, KimJongUn said:

the value is always morality

always

morality

 

Formatting Affs

-Don't be scared to be creative but do the same thing as people in your circuit do.  For example, if you say 'Contention 1:' and other people say 'My first contention is', bad judges won't flow your tagline because the template 'My first contention is' is the key for them to flow.

 

Theory Preempts

-If you're in a traditional circuit, you probably don't need to.

-Otherwise, think of it like an observation: put it in around the framework or as an underview.  Look at Tomasi's quarters TOC, or Adam Hoffman's TOC affs on http://circuitdebater.wikispaces.com for good examples of theory spikes

 

Value/Criterions

-They suck.

-Don't be afraid to get original.  I've had success infront of traditional judges valuing 'Pluralism' with the criterion of 'Minimizing Structural Violence' - like, just tie it to your case

 

If you want to see some LD K affs I've run infront of traditional judges, PM me.

since wikispaces is gone, where can I find those cases/spikes? or where did tomasi and adam hoffman go to school and what year

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×