Jump to content
r1t1k

Kritikal Aff

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone had some tips on how to answer to theory by the negative when reading a kritikal aff. The only thing I can really think of is fairness, regarding the ability of the aff to access the kritik. Any ideas help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will lose if you don't have a counter interp and lots of impact turns to their standards, as well as why you have better internal links to education and whatnot. 

So what would I say if they say that my aff isn't predictable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would I say if they say that my aff isn't predictable?

Something along the lines of "I bet white settler colonialism just loves it when the black body is nice and predictable." Just contextualize that sentence to your aff

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictability is just an internal link to fairness and/or education. I guarantee a social understanding and education of how society treats the black body is far more educational than aquaculture, and it's probably alot less fair for those who suffer under antiblackness than those who just have to answer a 1AC. 

 

Contextualize that sentence obviously. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr.Shanara Reid-Brinkley writes better articles about fairness and predictability being racist and anti-black

Reid-Brinkley more argues how certain norms and practices are presumed fair (and hide behind the guise of fairness) while being anti-black. I don't think DSRB would argue that "fairness" conceptually is a problem. When debaters understand the context of her criticism, they're likely better at applying it to their aff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your aff is grounded in the topic literature then it should be predictable enough especially if it is a large part of it. Additionally everyone is prepared to debate middle passage so if it's something like that then that's an answer. If they make a switch side argument this proves your no abuse claims. "Read it on the neg" means that the other team (as the aff) would have to be prepared to answer it in the 2AC [note: there are obvious ways to answer this such as they would also have the aff in this situation but there's always answers to everything. 

 

Predictability means nothing if topic literature is grounded in w/e your aff is about, if there are versions (of the aff) that can be read on the neg then they should also be prepared for it, unless they want to lose aff debates too. Proves no abuse. 

 

(Note: Unless you're careful you may get into trouble on the switch side front. Phrasing it as a double bind might also be helpful here. Tailor your answers to switch side not that it would be "impossible" to read on the neg but more of an increased edu when argued from the aff)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your aff is grounded in the topic literature then it should be predictable enough especially if it is a large part of it. Additionally everyone is prepared to debate middle passage so if it's something like that then that's an answer. If they make a switch side argument this proves your no abuse claims. "Read it on the neg" means that the other team (as the aff) would have to be prepared to answer it in the 2AC [note: there are obvious ways to answer this such as they would also have the aff in this situation but there's always answers to everything. 

 

Predictability means nothing if topic literature is grounded in w/e your aff is about, if there are versions (of the aff) that can be read on the neg then they should also be prepared for it, unless they want to lose aff debates too. Proves no abuse. 

 

(Note: Unless you're careful you may get into trouble on the switch side front. Phrasing it as a double bind might also be helpful here. Tailor your answers to switch side not that it would be "impossible" to read on the neg but more of an increased edu when argued from the aff)

Switch side debate means its better to read framework in the 2ac than the 1nc :^)

Edited by KimJongUn
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"lol we disclosed, go cry about it"

I was too lazy/uninformed/high/from-a-small-school-that-doesn't-have-the-resources-to-prepare-against to do anything against you so ur a cheater noob. 

 

 

Also, having your K aff fundamentally somehow talking a little bit about the topic makes answering FW and T arguments a lot easier. Don't be that team that reads a K aff applicable to a topic from 5 years ago and than whines when people read FW because they have literally nothing else. At the point that this is a competitive activity, don't complain when they say something to the affect of "I have to be able to negate this and they're not letting me". 

 

I might be ranting a little bit but I am so tired of the people who like to pretend that they're not writing their K aff for the ballot. You might have some form of agenda towards actual liberation from oppression or making a point, but until you remove the A. competition and B. The usage of debate as an extra-curricular to help get jobs/acceptance to schools (and oh howdy this is the big one and only reason why I debate) you're trying to get the ballot. You can remove A and B by throwing the round (as that one TOC team did who asked for 30's on speaks every round) and to those who do that I applaud them. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I might be ranting a little bit but I am so tired of the people who like to pretend that they're not writing their K aff for the ballot. You might have some form of agenda towards actual liberation from oppression or making a point, but until you remove the A. competition and B. The usage of debate as an extra-curricular to help get jobs/acceptance to schools (and oh howdy this is the big one and only reason why I debate) you're trying to get the ballot. You can remove A and B by throwing the round (as that one TOC team did who asked for 30's on speaks every round) and to those who do that I applaud them. 

 

 

I think you're wrong about this for a few reasons

a) "wanting the ballot" isn't necessarily bad, in fact it furthers the Ks claims of spillover, i.e. moving on to the next round to spread ideas. This is kinda a silly argument, but there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to move forward to spread ideas.

B) Even if they do want competitive advantages, that's not the only thing the K aff achieves. Other edu standards still apply, and there are other intrinsic reasons to debate. K affs might be written partially for the ballot, but not in totality, which I think occurs more often than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was too lazy/uninformed/high/from-a-small-school-that-doesn't-have-the-resources-to-prepare-against to do anything against you so ur a cheater noob. 

 

 

Open ev checks all abuse

 

Also yeah, I agree framework is fine if its totally unrelated to the topic, but if its "in the direction of the resolution" or some shit like that, you have plenty of things to run besides T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was too lazy/uninformed/high/from-a-small-school-that-doesn't-have-the-resources-to-prepare-against to do anything against you so ur a cheater noob. 

 

 

Also, having your K aff fundamentally somehow talking a little bit about the topic makes answering FW and T arguments a lot easier. Don't be that team that reads a K aff applicable to a topic from 5 years ago and than whines when people read FW because they have literally nothing else. At the point that this is a competitive activity, don't complain when they say something to the affect of "I have to be able to negate this and they're not letting me". 

I might be ranting a little bit but I am so tired of the people who like to pretend that they're not writing their K aff for the ballot. You might have some form of agenda towards actual liberation from oppression or making a point, but until you remove the A. competition and B. The usage of debate as an extra-curricular to help get jobs/acceptance to schools (and oh howdy this is the big one and only reason why I debate) you're trying to get the ballot. You can remove A and B by throwing the round (as that one TOC team did who asked for 30's on speaks every round) and to those who do that I applaud them.

 

well shit nothing pisses me off more than when people who read offshore wind don't actually want offshore wind to happen!! they're ruining debate.. God damnit
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well shit nothing pisses me off more than when people who read offshore wind don't actually want offshore wind to happen!! they're ruining debate.. God damnit

 

But at least with a stock aff you don't pretend to see revolutionary potential or social change from it. At that point debate is agreed to be a game by all parties involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smart framework teams won't bitch about fairness and all those crap standards. They would go for a straight up state good/pragmatism good/reformism good debate and how you need to be topical to do that

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smart framework teams won't bitch about fairness and all those crap standards. They would go for a straight up state good/pragmatism good/reformism good debate and how you need to be topical to do that

They also tend to not read fem K's. 

  • Upvote 3

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

×