StormA03 20 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 What are some effective neg strats against K affs? I don't really know how to answer them. Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MCat 157 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) What are some effective neg strats against K affs? I don't really know how to answer them. Thanks!It is really contingent on the aff- can you give a more specific basis? Here are some common options 1) framework- want them to defend a policy not an advocacy 2) t- maybe their kritik of tje topicnis not in tje least big pertinent to the rez 3) kritik it A) cap k- popular- plan helps cap/ affects capital and that is bad B] schmitt k- a team on my circuit likes to run this- the aff solves enmity and enmity is good - the more specific to the aff the better The best option is to either go hard right or hard left Edited January 3, 2014 by MCat 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormA03 20 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 It is really contingent on the aff- can you give a more specific basis? Here are some common options 1) framework- want them to defend a policy not an advocacy 2) t- maybe their kritik of tje topicnis not in tje least big pertinent to the rez 3) kritik it A) cap k- popular- plan helps cap/ affects capital and that is bad B] schmitt k- a team on my circuit likes to run this- the aff solves enmity and enmity is good - the more specific to the aff the better The best option is to either go hard right or hard left I think a couple of teams on the circuit are running K affs with the opening of US/Mexico border. The advantages are probably relating to race/gender Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MCat 157 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 I think a couple of teams on the circuit are running K affs with the opening of US/Mexico border. The advantages are probably relating to race/gender Is it fiated? Are they actually opening it or just breaking down the border in the mind? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormA03 20 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Is it fiated? Are they actually opening it or just breaking down the border in the mind? They're actually opening it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MCat 157 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) They're actually opening it1) t-ee - opening borders prolly isnt ee 2) the other off really depends on what you are good at- You can k it- schmit, cap Da- opening border causes terrorism and argue for util and there is always politics Cp's- a condition cp or process cp or consult 3) as far as case goes - there are cards that opening the border causes more racism, defense to aff cant solve, alt cause- us wont stop other acts of hegemony, etc Edited January 3, 2014 by MCat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TamaleTosser 202 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 yo sorry that aff is unbeatable ;D, jk. Critiquing a k aff is the best way to go. I'm just going to blurt a bunch of arguments, if you need help understanding any particular one just ask: framework, suffering reps, speaking for others, absurdity, cp to where every country opens the border (maybe, idk if this is actually a thing), and if the plan is only about lifting the border and not discourse or contextualizing the mind you can probably run some kappeler or personnel responsibility stuff. Also check out the Gonzaga and HSS files on openevidence for neg stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
agl125 218 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 The best option is to either go hard right or hard left 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrEragonSaph 212 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 1) t-ee - opening borders prolly isnt ee Wait what is different between that and lifting the embargo? Both just let more EE in the future.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
agl125 218 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Wait what is different between that and lifting the embargo? Both just let more EE in the future.... it becomes one of those t debates which devolves into an effects T debate due to the nature of this years rez and the interpretations of EE being read. Opening up the border with Mexico is not EE in any sense, but is EE through effects in basically every way (some people try to spin this as diplomatic engagement, but the lit is not really on their side.) the only difference really in the effects t debates with open borders vs. embargo is that the embargo is perceived as the number 1 aff under this topic this year (core of topic) whereas the predictability and topic specific arguments for open borders are not quite as good. Some judges will pull the trigger on effects T on open borders, whereas almost no judge will ever vote down the embargo on T. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrEragonSaph 212 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 it becomes one of those t debates which devolves into an effects T debate due to the nature of this years rez and the interpretations of EE being read. Opening up the border with Mexico is not EE in any sense, but is EE through effects in basically every way (some people try to spin this as diplomatic engagement, but the lit is not really on their side.) the only difference really in the effects t debates with open borders vs. embargo is that the embargo is perceived as the number 1 aff under this topic this year (core of topic) whereas the predictability and topic specific arguments for open borders are not quite as good. Some judges will pull the trigger on effects T on open borders, whereas almost no judge will ever vote down the embargo on T. It should just be framed as a reason why their interp restricts literally the core of the topic. Should be pretty easy to win that opening borders are EE if that's the best offense against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
agl125 218 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) It should just be framed as a reason why their interp restricts literally the core of the topic. Should be pretty easy to win that opening borders are EE if that's the best offense against it. ya i have never had or seen anyone have a problem with it. But bad T debates lead to bad decisions, and with affs like open borders, its easy to fall of the mark in a T debate and become mezmorized by the critical aapects of the case which interact with the T debate, and lose sight of the simple "if you reject us, you reject the core of the topic, ie. cuba embargo" type args that most policy affs consistently make. that said, open borders is probably 100% topical as it is Edited January 3, 2014 by agl125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chriskim 32 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 If this is the borders K aff, there's a neg file on openevidence. http://openevidence.debatecoaches.org/bin/2013/Affirmatives type in 'gonzaga' in the first filter and it should be the first result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feldsy 1099 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 If its borers with a plan text, the State PIC is a killer. You're agreeing that borders are bad----you just want to go a step further and remove borders territorializing the mind and restricting desire. Schmitt is pretty good against borders (policy or K aff), and with the right links cap can be run against almost any aff. Cap's also good against borders especially since opening up the borders would probably increase U.S.-mexico trade flows. Its pretty hard to out-right the plan text version of borders---you can try it but i wouldn't reccomend. I've also always been a fan of reading a CTP DA or K against K affs (independent of framework) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TamaleTosser 202 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) If its borers with a plan text, the State PIC is a killer. You're agreeing that borders are bad----you just want to go a step further and remove borders territorializing the mind and restricting desire. Schmitt is pretty good against borders (policy or K aff), and with the right links cap can be run against almost any aff. Cap's also good against borders especially since opening up the borders would probably increase U.S.-mexico trade flows. Its pretty hard to out-right the plan text version of borders---you can try it but i wouldn't reccomend. I've also always been a fan of reading a CTP DA or K against K affs (independent of framework) CTP DA? Edited January 3, 2014 by TamaleTosser Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrEragonSaph 212 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 If its borers with a plan text, the State PIC is a killer. You're agreeing that borders are bad----you just want to go a step further and remove borders territorializing the mind and restricting desire. Schmitt is pretty good against borders (policy or K aff), and with the right links cap can be run against almost any aff. Cap's also good against borders especially since opening up the borders would probably increase U.S.-mexico trade flows. Its pretty hard to out-right the plan text version of borders---you can try it but i wouldn't reccomend. I've also always been a fan of reading a CTP DA or K against K affs (independent of framework) Schmitt is pretty damn right... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hmhm 22 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Heg good K, Cede the political DA and framework Making great K debates since the dawn of time. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feldsy 1099 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 CTP DA? Cede the political. Dat state is inevitable, and exiting state based politics only allows the right to take over. Authoritarian takeover causes extinction and turns all doese K impacts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feldsy 1099 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Schmitt is pretty damn right... You are correct. It's just then when i think K, i instantly think Left. That's true most of the time, but not always. And Schmitt and Schmittean authors do come out in favor of plurality, so it does have some liberal elements to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
banjodude 186 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Cede the political. Dat state is inevitable, and exiting state based politics only allows the right to take over. Authoritarian takeover causes extinction and turns all doese K impacts Dat uniqueness question tho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ARGogate 2316 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Read the Nazi K. It always works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnb 16 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Edit - sorry that was a little brunt as Firewater pointed out Edited January 5, 2014 by mnb 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KTricksfordays 107 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) If you know which teams (and their K affs) you may be facing beforehand, it is really helpful to scout. You can usually find very K aff specific evidence as to why the action of their plan is bad. i.e. Grieving Bad, Roleplaying Bad, Discussion fails to create real change, Individual action not effective, State essential for change, etc... Generally from what Ive seen, disagreeing with the main premise of the aff is NOT effective, you should agree with their goal, but reject or alter their method in a way that is more effective. Edited January 3, 2014 by KTricksfordays Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feldsy 1099 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 Dat uniqueness question tho hence reading it as a K with the alt being something like "vote neg to engage the state and fight for justice from withing" 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ARGogate 2316 Report post Posted January 3, 2014 If there's no fiated plan, then establish basis for competition. "If we win engaging Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela is bad, do we win?" etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
