Jump to content
Sign

Narrative/Performance

Recommended Posts

So. I need help understanding the point behind these types of aff's. More specifically, how to beat them. I don't know how debate them when they say they aren't debating as they say. I mean a K, T, and Framework is my off case for all of these types of aff's but I was wondering what do you guys do or off case you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. I need help understanding the point behind these types of aff's. More specifically, how to beat them. I don't know how debate them when they say they aren't debating as they say. I mean a K, T, and Framework is my off case for all of these types of aff's but I was wondering what do you guys do or off case you do?

what do you mean by this?

 

also which affs are you talking about? affs that have a performative aspect or affs that are almost all performative? if their isn't an endpoint to their method, you could read parametric depending of what the RoB is. 

 

but ya it's hard to tell you how to answer them if it's just a "performance aff" because that can mean a lot of different things. depending on your style and judge, I would just stick with a particular K that you understand and has a solid link to the aff. teams that read K affs of any kind are most likely going to be ready for the T debate.

 

Edit: is there a particular aff you are talking about?

Edited by Schopenhauer
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best strategy: PIC out of part of their performance

 

Most generalizeable: Framework framework framework

 

In CX: ask them what their theory of debate is.  That is, what's the purpose of the debate round? What is being debated?  Under what circumstances should the aff win? Under what circumstances should the negative win?  Much of the time they won't have good answers.  As part of Framework, explain to the judge why their theory of debate isn't fair.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't group performance affs into one group. You can't have an AT: Performance file.

 

My strategy is a PIC, some K, usually kritiking their method so they can't no link out of it, and instead of framework, read T. They want to have a framework debate. And having done a performance aff, I  would too. Instead of asking "does their project belong?" you should ask "should their type of project belong" and then you don't have to deal with all the USFG bad stuff.

 

Any questions, feel free to ask. Or if you have a specific aff you don't know how to answer

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean by this?

 

also which affs are you talking about? affs that have a performative aspect or affs that are almost all performative? if their isn't an endpoint to their method, you could read parametric depending of what the RoB is. 

 

but ya it's hard to tell you how to answer them if it's just a "performance aff" because that can mean a lot of different things. depending on your style and judge, I would just stick with a particular K that you understand and has a solid link to the aff. teams that read K affs of any kind are most likely going to be ready for the T debate.

 

Edit: is there a particular aff you are talking about?

There was a performance that said that they aren't debating. The are just making a point.

Also I am just talking about aff's that read narrative's mostly or reads the 1AC in a poam. That kind of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best strategy: PIC out of part of their performance

 

Most generalizeable: Framework framework framework

 

In CX: ask them what their theory of debate is.  That is, what's the purpose of the debate round? What is being debated?  Under what circumstances should the aff win? Under what circumstances should the negative win?  Much of the time they won't have good answers.  As part of Framework, explain to the judge why their theory of debate isn't fair.

What word PIC do you think is the best then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word PICs are kinda dumb. 

 

If they say something bad and the 1AC discourse is their performance, word pics make a lot of sense

 

 

Read the Capitalism Kritik

 

Too predictable and while the links may be rhetorically powerful, they don't make sense for many affs

 

 

What's the purpose of the debate round?

 

This is important - you need to know what the role of the ballot/judge is/

 

 

Under what circumstances should the negative win?

 

To explain this further, you need to pin down parts of the aff you can actually answer (e.g. "if we win X is bad/good, do we win?")

 

 

As part of Framework, explain to the judge why their theory of debate isn't fair.

 

Caveat to this is debating affs that criticize debate - the question "fair for whom?" becomes relevant

 

 

Some K, usually kritiking their method

 

This is the ideal strat - many teams tend to essentialize their object of criticism

 

 

They want to have a framework debate.

 

This is true - any team that solely defends the narrative/performance of the 1AC wants you to go for framework because it's literally the most predictable argument, just like how Cap/Anthro are some of the more predictable critiques.

 

 

Instead of asking "does their project belong?" you should ask "should their type of project belong"

 

I would avoid using the label of "project" affs - the word has taken on some negative connotations

 

 

There was a performance that said that they aren't debating. The are just making a point.

 

This is what most performative method teams do, which is why understanding the RotJ is imperative - which is why if you can't make them defend something you can negate, framework becomes the only option - if they don't give you anything, ground becomes a very good internal link to some form of impact

 

 

Also, I am just talking about affs that read narratives mostly or reads the 1AC in a poem. That kind of stuff.

 

fixed.

 

You can always criticize their reliance on narratives or use of poetry.

 

 

The bottom line is that you'll need to do some research to beat these teams - whether you want to make a super-specific argument to read against them or just a few case defense cards is up to you, but you need some arguments on case.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had made a post earlier on this subject, and there's some good discussion in this thread. http://www.cross-x.com/topic/55991-performance-debates/

 

I don't have time to go through each post in this thread (I'm really sick), but if they did say that they're just making a point and not actually debating, then I would say that you have a good story on framework. The whole point of debate as an activity is to have a clash of ideas and see which ones "come out on top" after dialogue and competition. If they're just telling a story, why do they have to tell it in the debate room? They may come back by saying that they need to talk about it at every moment, but that kind of seals their fate at that point. You can argue that it would be better to talk about it in the context of the USFG, linking to your framework arguments. You can argue that they crowd out other forms of discussion, linking to your kritik. The majority of K affs answer a kritik by some form of a no link/perm/link turn argument. If they say that they need to talk about their issue all the time, I think you can spin a decent link that they pave over capitalism/anthropocentrism/identity issues/etc.

 

If they don't actually have an answer to why they need to talk about it in debate, then you're set on framework. Argue for fairness and education.

 

There will be some dissenters to this post, but I can't go too in depth with my headache as it is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Poetry is the easiest type of performance to answer.

You can write can't you?  Counter-poetry

Make the same arguments...now in poetry

 

How do they define what poetry is?  How does it differ from other forms of literature or art?

 

2) Also Reps/Dirty Word PIC

3) Perhaps Framework, although they are likely to be ready to roll on this....and you have to too.  Also, this can be a bit judge dependent in terms of its effectiveness--but that may actually be a good thing for you.  

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the Capitalism Kritik. Word PICs are kinda dumb. 

 

Cap is the FW of K debaters. 

 

If you see that aff, you know, that aff that you've got literally no idea what to do against.. read cap. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't group performance affs into one group. You can't have an AT: Performance file.

 

My strategy is a PIC, some K, usually kritiking their method so they can't no link out of it, and instead of framework, read T. They want to have a framework debate. And having done a performance aff, I  would too. Instead of asking "does their project belong?" you should ask "should their type of project belong" and then you don't have to deal with all the USFG bad stuff.

 

Any questions, feel free to ask. Or if you have a specific aff you don't know how to answer

 

Can you elaborate on the T vs. F/W distinction? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What word PIC do you think is the best then?

 

I didn't say 'word', i said part of their performance.  It could be a word, a passage, the way they said (or did!) it, or any other identifiable part of their performance.  Be prepared to counter-perform depending on what you're objecting to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Poetry is the easiest type of performance to answer.

You can write can't you?  Counter-poetry

Make the same arguments...now in poetry

 

How do they define what poetry is?  How does it differ from other forms of literature or art?

 

2) Also Reps/Dirty Word PIC

3) Perhaps Framework, although they are likely to be ready to roll on this....and you have to too.  Also, this can be a bit judge dependent in terms of its effectiveness--but that may actually be a good thing for you.

 

On the poetry thing-if they are doing a performance neg, it's pretty easy to win that your 1ac is poetry. Pin them down to a definition of poetry (it probably will be something like you need an emotional/spiritual connection), then in your 2ac talk about how much you care about the problems in your 1ac, how emotionally invested you are, etc.

 

I'm not even kidding people win rounds on this arg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "everything is poetry so the 1AC was poetry to us" is the worst answer in the world. Not that it is necessarily unstrategic or isn't able to win debates, it's that as a poet I think it's not true. The 1AC isn't/wasn't genuinely poetry for the aff team until the 1NC made it strategic for the aff to pretend it was so, the evidence is not contextual to the form of poetry the aff claims it is, and the 1AC is written in a prose manner, which form wise is distinct from most forms of poetry (even free verse and avant-garde forms of poetry have specific affective/aesthetic forms and are usually determined as so by purpose), and either way it probably lacks the specific content that makes the reading/performance of the poem good. It's an argument you should make, but any good team will make this argument will look like a dumb joke (although there are definitely judges who are unable to reason this out).

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one strategy no one has mentioned.....Impact turns.

 

Not sure if it will apply every time....but its something to think about.

Its not always the best....but something to remember.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap is the FW of K debaters. 

 

If you see that aff, you know, that aff that you've got literally no idea what to do against.. read cap. 

 

While it may be the FW of K debaters, it works amazingly well. Hell, it helped my partner and I beat numerous ToC bid teams this year including Niles West KC. 

 

The one strategy no one has mentioned.....Impact turns.

 

Not sure if it will apply every time....but its something to think about.

Its not always the best....but something to remember.

 

Impact turns usually fail because the team you're debating will probably be more prepared and more knowledgeable on their impacts. 

Edited by RRR-Debater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one strategy no one has mentioned.....Impact turns.

 

Not sure if it will apply every time....but its something to think about.

Its not always the best....but something to remember.

Ehhhhhh... racism good? exploitation good? patriarchy good?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All key to our heg m8 

In reality I think that a world that became openly and widely against racism would also probably frown upon hegemonic control. That crosses a line though in terms of being openly offensive. Theoretically, you could win util and that heg saves more lives than racism destroys, but no judge wants to vote on that and it's going too far. 

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...