Jump to content
EndlessFacepalm

Kritikal Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

Pick a part of the topic and find a K that links to it (this is frequently the use of the state, but can be any word or phrase in the resolution, though I doubt a K of and/or would be all that good).  Make that K implicate other parts of the resolution (particularly important if your link is the state).  Put as many framework pre-empts as possible into the 1ac (make them specific to your aff as possible and don't make it obvious that that's what they are).  Write a 2ac block to framework (ideally have a 4-6 minute one, depending on how many other positions you expect to link to, and an 8 minute one for when the other team goes one-off).  Write 2ac blocks to anthro, cap, identity politics Ks, Nietzsche, and anything that seems like it links particularly hard to your aff (you've presumably read the lit on whatever your aff is, so the criticisms should be relatively obvious to you from that reading).  Find generic perms and NBs to the perm to let you answer other Ks that you're not ready for.  

 

There's probably a better explanation and discussion in another thread, so search the site and read through those, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Write a 2ac block to framework (ideally have a 4-6 minute one, depending on how many other positions you expect to link to, and an 8 minute one for when the other team goes one-off). 

4-6 minutes on framework?!?! My blocks to framework take 2 minutes w/o analytics/cross-applications from case and about 2:45 w/ analytics/cross-apps and they're pretty solid LA FLAME blocks

 

But I do have set of blocks that take up to 4/4:30 minutes 

Edited by Payton
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a difference between a critical aff and a K aff or are they the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a difference between a critical aff and a K aff or are they the same thing?

I think it depends on the person really, but there are generally three types of critical affirmatives: policy advocacy with soft k advantage(s), critical advocacy with critical advantages or position, and what's left, like something without a strict advocacy or something based on in round stuff (activism and the like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4-6 minutes on framework?!?! My blocks to framework take 2 minutes w/o analytics/cross-applications from case and about 2:45 w/ analytics/cross-apps and they're pretty solid LA FLAME blocks

 

But I do have set of blocks that take up to 4/4:30 minutes 

How many other off-case positions are read against you?  I'm used to debating one-off framework and framework + K that doesn't link, so I can generally get away with spending 2 minutes on all the other flows combined.  Also, 2 minutes just seems insufficient in the extreme; would you be willing to share your blocks because if you can win with them, then I've been doing something horribly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick a part of the topic and find a K that links to it

Nahh dude, you can't do Oceans AROUND(25) Deleuze, you gotta read the literature and see what the people in the lit talk about. Don't go in with a set goal in mind, let the lit lead you.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one go about writing a critical affirmative?

Idk why but i always get a little annoyed with a question like this. Critical affirmatives are all structured differently. It is based on the philosophy. There isnt one specific way to write or run a K aff. You need to first find out what philosopher you are interested in. You need to really learn that philosophy well and then you can turn it into a K aff.

Remember the entire point of an affirmative is to present a problem and a solution to the problem. How you do that is entirely up to you and the philosophers you are planning on reading 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig Deep Ecology and Heidegger. DnG seems interesting but I don't want to butcher their philosophy.

 

The issues of poverty and homelessness ate near and dear to my heart, as is economic inequality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig Deep Ecology and Heidegger. DnG seems interesting but I don't want to butcher their philosophy.

 

The issues of poverty and homelessness ate near and dear to my heart, as is economic inequality.

This is probably going to be a long conversation but you should first start by reading the various lit basis. I know that McWhorter has good analysis on heidegger's theories. And I think the book for deep eco is the 3 ecologies. I would stick to one philosophy for the aff so you dont find yourself in trouble with epistemic contradictions  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Depending on the type of aff, be willing to commodify/impact turn everything you believe in

2. Contrary to what most others say, IMO, pick a topic/type of philosophy beforehand and make sure it works in a debate context (you can read all the fatalism/dada lit you want to but it won't make a good aff) 

3. As is addressed here and in many other threads, there's no one true way structure a K aff, you just sorta make one and it'll feel a lot like a 1-off 1nc at first, then you'll change your formatting and a coupe cards and it'll feel more like an aff, then you find some more cards maybe add/or remove an analytic block do some more reformatting and it'll feel like an actual aff, after that, you just have to choose/find the best cards out there for whatever type of aff you're doing 

4. I'd advise having framework blocks/blocks to common K's you'll hit built into the 1ac, it save a lot of time 

5. Finally, think from the 2ar backwards. If you have a card that has potentially offensive language AND it doesn't really get you too far, scrap it. Those type of cards make the 2nr really easy and the 2ar really hard. Also, if you have a card(s) connecting your aff to multiple philosophies/gives you root cause access, i'd advise including in the 1ac, it'll make your last speech easier and because you read it so early in the round it seems much less shifty than a new piece of ev in the 1ar

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.As well to that , i advise for framework design the 1ac where the 1ac can answer framework standard by stanard,

2.Make sure you enjoy the lit you pick as your K aff 

3.Round the lit you like around this years topic , a carefully shaped 1ac where things such as a perfomance ensure things such as a methodology debate . Or depends in your K/critical aff . 

4.You can make it take the Assumptions of what an action can do , and then look where the topic can take you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make it take the Assumptions of what an action can do , and then look where the topic can take you

 

 

we did this on my schmitt performance aff, we won the round which had the clear implication of making our opponents our enemies so we analyzed the assumption of taking the ballot never dropped a round genius

Edited by KimJongUn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.As well to that , i advise for framework design the 1ac where the 1ac can answer framework standard by stanard,

 

This is like the same thing as reading a 2AC A2: T shell in the 1AC

I feel like there are multiple problems to this 

1) It waste time. You could be spending that time adding more warrants to your specific method. The case is your "baby" if you dont spend enough time providing substantial analysis on the method itself then there isnt really a strong reason to justify an affirmative ballot

2) you assume that debaters will use those preset standards which may or may not be likely

3) You could def find yourself in trouble with preemptive framework Pik/Pics 

4) I feel like this could be used against you on the framework debate if the decide to run it 

Instead you should be able to spin most if not all cards to make it somehow relevant to the framework debate and/or  

subtly put in framework preempts that can be cross applied to the framework flow later. This allows for more substantive analysis on the specific methodology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is like the same thing as reading a 2AC A2: T shell in the 1AC

 

 

Not really, because you are impact turning.  On most affs you don't have all that much offense against T/Framework as you do with a K aff.

 

You could def find yourself in trouble with preemptive framework Pik/Pics 

 

 

Not sure what this means exactly.  I understand what a framework PIK is, but I don't see how this would be an issue.  An example might help.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like the same thing as reading a 2AC A2: T shell in the 1AC

I feel like there are multiple problems to this 

1) It waste time. You could be spending that time adding more warrants to your specific method. The case is your "baby" if you dont spend enough time providing substantial analysis on the method itself then there isnt really a strong reason to justify an affirmative ballot

2) you assume that debaters will use those preset standards which may or may not be likely

3) You could def find yourself in trouble with preemptive framework Pik/Pics 

4) I feel like this could be used against you on the framework debate if the decide to run it 

 

Instead you should be able to spin most if not all cards to make it somehow relevant to the framework debate and/or  

subtly put in framework preempts that can be cross applied to the framework flow later. This allows for more substantive analysis on the specific methodology.

 

The trick is to have the framework preempts at least semi hidden, also, it's not necessary to put ALL your framework blocks in the 1ac, just a few to help leverage something in addition to whatever you read in the 2ac. Also, a simple solution to reading more cards is to read better cards, if your solvency cards are so weak that reading 1-2 framework preempts kills your method, you've got other problems

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 it's not necessary to put ALL your framework blocks in the 1ac

 

 

I think this is smart for time reasons

I think its smart for perceptual reasons--it makes 2acs interesting/surprising rather than redundant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trick is to have the framework preempts at least semi hidden

this is so true it's not even funny.

  • Upvote 2

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...