Jump to content
BrookeB

Kato Kritik/ Case Turn

Recommended Posts

I recently hit a Kato case turn at a tournament and nearly lost on it. One of the older debaters gave me cards to answer it in the future but I'd really like to figure out some good analytic arguments to make. If y'all could help me get the gist of this argument as a whole/ have suggestions for what I could respond with that would be great! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are referring to the Nuclearism turn, the best analytic to make is about how the material impacts of extinction o/w the forms of violence Kato refers to. Like any framing card like Schell coupled with an analytic that the alternative would do nothing to actually solve the problems in the squo are reasons why existence is a per-requisite to addressing the structural violence that card talks about. Those are just a quick thought.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I would suggest you to buy the $5 Kato file on Evazon because it has some good aff answers cards. In particular, the violence against the "Fourth World" indigenous has already been done and most countries (including the US) (if I remember correctly) no longer test on native lands or near indigenous peoples. 

 

Judge choice is probably good as a short answer to blow up later but I don't really think it's a good strategy, mainly because the theory against it is pretty good, in my opinion at least.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge choice is probably good as a short answer to blow up later but I don't really think it's a good strategy, mainly because the theory against it is pretty good, in my opinion at least.

 

That really depends on the judge.  I find judge choice pretty compelling, because the analogies between how a reps K functions and how advantage turns function are solid.  (No one accuses you of severance if you stop advocating an advantage due to policy problems, and no one refuses to let you weigh the impacts of the rest of case against a harms impact turn. Example: You run a can't solve warming defense card and then a warming good turn.  I grant the can't solve warming, effectively severing the advantage and avoiding the turn.  No one thinks that's illegitimate).

 

Also, I have no problem with the idea that plan is the most important part of the affirmative speech, and think its on reasonably solid theoretical ground.

 

Any negative who runs Topicality and tells you plan isn't the most important part of case on a reps K is caught in a performative contradiction on argumentative standards.

Edited by Squirrelloid

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...