Jump to content
Pacifist

Need A2 obscure K's

Recommended Posts

What's a good way to attack k's that you've never heard of? I'm running a k aff, and usually people run random K's against them, so I was wondering how to answer them and if there's a file with good a2 frontlines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're reading a K aff, a lot of the random Ks people run just won't link.  If you don't have specific answers, case turns and is a prerequisite to the K, no link, perm do both is often sufficient.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generic K answers like CTP are your best friend in those circumstances

Can't really read CTP if you also don't defend fiat, since you'll most likely be defending that the political is useless and/or ceded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really read CTP if you also don't defend fiat, since you'll most likely be defending that the political is useless and/or ceded.

Oh, you're right.

 

Maybe try making a framework argument. There are hundreds of Ks, no way you can predict them all. That's bad for education and fairness. Predictability and clash are key to debate.

 

Worse case scenario, read a Kagan card and util. Heg good impact turns almost any K. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you're right.

 

Maybe try making a framework argument. There are hundreds of Ks, no way you can predict them all. That's bad for education and fairness. Predictability and clash are key to debate.

 

Worse case scenario, read a Kagan card and util. Heg good impact turns almost any K. 

You're also impact turning predictability and heg (via the state).  Are you trolling?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you're right.

 

Maybe try making a framework argument. There are hundreds of Ks, no way you can predict them all. That's bad for education and fairness. Predictability and clash are key to debate.

 

Worse case scenario, read a Kagan card and util. Heg good impact turns almost any K. 

Except a K on aff probably links harder to framework impact, and most K authors probably criticize heg..... 

 

Having a very specific role of the ballot can help, especially if you're quiet about it, because teams that are pulling some K out of their backfiles to answer you think that a K ROB is a K ROB, so if they don't make a WM argument or don't handle it well, you can beat them there. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a good way to attack k's that you've never heard of? I'm running a k aff, and usually people run random K's against them, so I was wondering how to answer them and if there's a file with good a2 frontlines

Have evidence that defends every part of your aff - that way you have offense on your aff being good even if you don't have evidence that their kritik is bad.

 

That means cut cards that defend the state (as specific as possible - for example, defend the state in context of ocean policy > generic state good), defend your types of impacts (do you resolve human suffering? do you save life? pull answers to those), defend your solvency (cut cards saying specific solvency > generic "turns case" claims; cut cards saying inaction is bad) and defend your impact calculus (nearly no school of philosophy answers "extinction outweighs / alters moral/epistemic calculus" because nearly nobody talks about extinction outside of debate. as a major k debater, "extinction outweighs" is the bane of kritik negs). 

 

Then remember to STOP every kritik - solvency, theory, offense and perms.

 

The alt doesn't Solve - Even if you're not fully sure of their argument, assert that they don't solve their impact because of alternate causes that the alt doesnt access. It's easy to discuss things contributing to sex inequality, for example, like international colonialism, that most gender kritiks do not resolve.  

 

Theory - ask if the alternative is conditional, if the kritik claims to solve or do the aff, if there's a text to the alternative, if there's an actor to the alternative (and who that actor is), and if the alternative is a method rather than an action, and then read theory shells against each type of argument. Drop the theory all over the flow between answers - it makes it harder for them to follow. 

 

Offense - insert <your case good> even if you don't have <their kritik bad>. You may also use cross-x to tease out potential implications of their kritik and then impact turn those (e.g. most Wilderson alternatives would collapse the economy as we know it, if only because they would end the prison-industrial complex - econ collapse bad becomes offense against the kritik). 

 

Perms - throw out a series of well-articulated permutations, including the standard double bind do both perm (either the alt is too weak to solve or its strong enough to solve the residual links created by the perm), sequencing perms, and other variant combinations ("enact the aff through the lens of unflinching paradigmatic analysis"; "use the aff as a springboard to get the alt into the government"; etc. a lot of old-school debaters used to make a lot of really clever and innovative perm style arguments. read old issues of debate journals to see what those debates looked like.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran a K aff last year. Usually people run Marx and if they don't they'll run a K that they don't understand (e.g. team read Badiou against me last year and they said some stuff about the simulacrum. I asked them what it was and they said "a group of people who get simulacrated." lolwut.) so just press them on it chances are they don't know what they're talking about. Also do everything said in here. Hit hard on the perm (if they make it a method debate this becomes a bit more challenging/interesting).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran a K aff last year. Usually people run Marx and if they don't they'll run a K that they don't understand (e.g. team read Badiou against me last year and they said some stuff about the simulacrum. I asked them what it was and they said "a group of people who get simulacrated." lolwut.) so just press them on it chances are they don't know what they're talking about. Also do everything said in here. Hit hard on the perm (if they make it a method debate this becomes a bit more challenging/interesting).

Where does Badiou talk about simulation?

The "this is a method debate" argument makes no sense as an answer to the perm.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if you know your K AFF then you should also know how to answer it - which means you ought to predict what other teams will run against you and prep really hard against those arguments. For example, if you're not topical then prepping against T/Framework is a given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does Badiou talk about simulation?

The "this is a method debate" argument makes no sense as an answer to the perm.

He doesn't, which is Arturos point. People that run obscure Ks against you prolly don't know what they're saying

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't, which is Arturos point. People that run obscure Ks against you prolly don't know what they're saying

Yeah I don't even know what was going on with that K. They called it Badiou but I'm pretty sure it was really poorly run baudrillard with a card that cited badiou in it that they had highlighted. 

 

They also tried to say Badiou with a really horrible french accent. My partner's parents are from france.

Edited by Arturo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "this is a method debate" argument makes no sense as an answer to the perm.

It kind of does, in order to ensure competing methods, esp when running an aff without a plantext. They won't necissarily disagree with the thesis of the aff just the way you do it. It shouldn't matter if it's mutually exclusive in these debates, just that one is more productive or "opens the space" better than the other. It's also a debate to be had, not one set in stone.

  • Upvote 1

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

×