Jump to content
harper231

Execution of kritiks

Recommended Posts

I've been working on running Ks for a while now. Reading Cross-x, actually reading the literature (Foucault), and just reading through K files and a few Vdebates. I think i have the general theory down, but i'm not sure what i should do in round. I know the shell. What should the 2nc and the rebuttals look like? How should i go about addressing case? What should going 1 off K look like? Any tips for a first time K debater? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to execute a Kritik? Kill it with fire.  :Flame:

 

Ahem.  As the negative, your job is to prove the affirmative's advocacy is a bad idea.  The K is a way to do that.  The only difference between arguing a DA and a K is the types of reasons why, not some magical difference.  Okay, there's some technical differences in the logical things you need to do this, but from a global perspective, it's just another way of explaining why the affirmative advocacy is bad - so prove that.  So how do you prove something is bad?  You show that there is something else better, and the affirmative advocacy trades off with it.  That's what 'bad' means - to be worse than the other option.  

 

As far as going 1-off K, you'd do that because you believe the extra depth of material you can cover outweighs the strategic advantage of running more positions.  So spend more time explaining your theory and the link/impact stories and the alternative.  A 3-4 card K shell is just a quick-and-dirty summary of the K.  A 1-off K is a full explanation (or as full as you can get in 8 minutes).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to execute a Kritik? Kill it with fire.  :Flame:

 

Ahem.  As the negative, your job is to prove the affirmative's advocacy is a bad idea.  The K is a way to do that.  The only difference between arguing a DA and a K is the types of reasons why, not some magical difference.  Okay, there's some technical differences in the logical things you need to do this, but from a global perspective, it's just another way of explaining why the affirmative advocacy is bad - so prove that.  So how do you prove something is bad?  You show that there is something else better, and the affirmative advocacy trades off with it.  That's what 'bad' means - to be worse than the other option.  

 

As far as going 1-off K, you'd do that because you believe the extra depth of material you can cover outweighs the strategic advantage of running more positions.  So spend more time explaining your theory and the link/impact stories and the alternative.  A 3-4 card K shell is just a quick-and-dirty summary of the K.  A 1-off K is a full explanation (or as full as you can get in 8 minutes).

Hold up, nope. Even a 1 off K should have 3 to 4 minutes of case in the 1NC. Sure you read a few links to advantages, but you need to put the pressure on the 2AC and also have some big pieces for the 1NR to play with. Starting the case debate in the block is just gonna screw you over. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold up, nope. Even a 1 off K should have 3 to 4 minutes of case in the 1NC. Sure you read a few links to advantages, but you need to put the pressure on the 2AC and also have some big pieces for the 1NR to play with. Starting the case debate in the block is just gonna screw you over. 

What if the K is performative? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the K is performative? 

Then you still have 3-4 minutes of case.  A performance is just another aspect of the K, just like adding another link, or another solvency advocate.  The (very good) reasons that Snark gave for having case in the 1NC still apply.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you still have 3-4 minutes of case.  A performance is just another aspect of the K, just like adding another link, or another solvency advocate.  The (very good) reasons that Snark gave for having case in the 1NC still apply.

neh its possible to just go 1 off k and win. Its a bit harder but teams do it on both the college and hs circuit. Usually if the "K/performance" is not made with specific internal link takeouts in it will be hard to win, but teams make turn case arguments on the k flow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neh its possible to just go 1 off k and win. Its a bit harder but teams do it on both the college and hs circuit. Usually if the "K/performance" is not made with specific internal link takeouts in it will be hard to win, but teams make turn case arguments on the k flow

 

Uhh...you can go 1 off and still have case. That's why it's one *off.*

And just because some teams don't read case in the 1nc doesn't mean it's good or strategic to do so. Some teams still read the spending DA, doesn't make it good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold up, nope. Even a 1 off K should have 3 to 4 minutes of case in the 1NC. Sure you read a few links to advantages, but you need to put the pressure on the 2AC and also have some big pieces for the 1NR to play with. Starting the case debate in the block is just gonna screw you over.

 

Good advice, but not universally true. If your critique centers around epistemology (security) than case would be a necessity, but other Kritiks of method and ontology disprove the case themselves, and a separate case page may not even be desirable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neh its possible to just go 1 off k and win. Its a bit harder but teams do it on both the college and hs circuit. Usually if the "K/performance" is not made with specific internal link takeouts in it will be hard to win, but teams make turn case arguments on the k flow 

that isnt true. 

even if they dont "address" the case good 1 off teams still provide case responses on the K debate. 

And it is only harder for kids who dont understand what they are talking about. This is only one example but i have def been more successful with the 1 off K than any other strat ive read this year. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that isnt true. 

even if they dont "address" the case good 1 off teams still provide case responses on the K debate. 

And it is only harder for kids who dont understand what they are talking about. This is only one example but i have def been more successful with the 1 off K than any other strat ive read this year. 

We said the same thing, their are internal link takeouts made on the K flow. the K and the Case interact. We just used different terminology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good advice, but not universally true. If your critique centers around epistemology (security) than case would be a necessity, but other Kritiks of method and ontology disprove the case themselves, and a separate case page may not even be desirable

Uhhh...no. That's like saying 'Oh the DA outweighs the case so I don't need to read case answers.' If you want to win your debates going 1-off, you read case answers or at *least* links to advantages on case as turns. If you read 9 minutes of say Wilderson (or insert 'method or ontology k here') in the 1NC and that's it, then you just gave the aff permission to read 8:30 of answers in the 2AC which is not the spot you want to be in. Funny story, but you're not guaranteed to win the K, which means about 3-4 (in HS speech times) minutes of case answers is prudent. If you come out swinging in the 1NC with solid case answers you can use that as leverage against any problems you run into on the K page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh...no. That's like saying 'Oh the DA outweighs the case so I don't need to read case answers.' If you want to win your debates going 1-off, you read case answers or at *least* links to advantages on case as turns. If you read 9 minutes of say Wilderson (or insert 'method or ontology k here') in the 1NC and that's it, then you just gave the aff permission to read 8:30 of answers in the 2AC which is not the spot you want to be in. Funny story, but you're not guaranteed to win the K, which means about 3-4 (in HS speech times) minutes of case answers is prudent. If you come out swinging in the 1NC with solid case answers you can use that as leverage against any problems you run into on the K page.

 

This makes sense; but then why did teams like Oklahoma CL and Emporia SW do so well reading performative arguments 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes sense; but then why did teams like Oklahoma CL and Emporia SW do so well reading performative arguments 

If you can break at the NDT you can do whatever you want. 99.8% of debaters aren't that good so it's more strategic to err on the side of taking out the aff's case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh...no. That's like saying 'Oh the DA outweighs the case so I don't need to read case answers.' If you want to win your debates going 1-off, you read case answers or at *least* links to advantages on case as turns. If you read 9 minutes of say Wilderson (or insert 'method or ontology k here') in the 1NC and that's it, then you just gave the aff permission to read 8:30 of answers in the 2AC which is not the spot you want to be in. Funny story, but you're not guaranteed to win the K, which means about 3-4 (in HS speech times) minutes of case answers is prudent. If you come out swinging in the 1NC with solid case answers you can use that as leverage against any problems you run into on the K page.

Let's be real, if you're going 1-off and you lose the k you're going to have a bad time no matter what.

Wilderson is not my specialty, but i'll use your example. When you're reading a k (especially if it's 1-off) your link arguments have to be far more nuanced than a DA. A link argument should be more than 'plan is anti-black', but should include solvency take outs as well (uneven development of whiteness prevents you from solving warming).

Letting the aff read 8:30 of answers in the 2AC is not a bad place to be because you still have the block and will win in terms of time trade off. 

I'm not saying drop the case, but why would you waste your time going to that page when you can make this arguments more specifically on the k flow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be real, if you're going 1-off and you lose the k you're going to have a bad time no matter what.

Wilderson is not my specialty, but i'll use your example. When you're reading a k (especially if it's 1-off) your link arguments have to be far more nuanced than a DA. A link argument should be more than 'plan is anti-black', but should include solvency take outs as well (uneven development of whiteness prevents you from solving warming).

Letting the aff read 8:30 of answers in the 2AC is not a bad place to be because you still have the block and will win in terms of time trade off. 

I'm not saying drop the case, but why would you waste your time going to that page when you can make this arguments more specifically on the k flow?

Can confirm true 10/10 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be real, if you're going 1-off and you lose the k you're going to have a bad time no matter what.

Wilderson is not my specialty, but i'll use your example. When you're reading a k (especially if it's 1-off) your link arguments have to be far more nuanced than a DA. A link argument should be more than 'plan is anti-black', but should include solvency take outs as well (uneven development of whiteness prevents you from solving warming).

Letting the aff read 8:30 of answers in the 2AC is not a bad place to be because you still have the block and will win in terms of time trade off. 

I'm not saying drop the case, but why would you waste your time going to that page when you can make this arguments more specifically on the k flow?

You still have not provided a single strategic reason why there shouldn't be a large case debate. Sure, there will be times when you can win without it, but any good team is going to know how to leverage their case against the K and unless you're doing actual work to take that out you're giving them free leverage the judge can use against you.

Furthermore, let's be more realistic, in all but the most one sided debates, no one is winning all of the K (or even all of the case). Thus, it's far more strategic to be able to make inroads on the case so you can leverage those against any shortcomings on the K page. 

The links you describe are far rarer than you'd think. While it's true that good links will have marginal solvency indicts, these are only in the generic and for policy cases will almost never be able to sever the linkages between the plan and the impact scenario. Taking your warming links for example, even with disparate effects and solvency mechanisms, this very very rarely is enough to keep the aff from winning their impact scenario. 

There's no world where letting the aff read 8:30 of answers puts you in a better spot than having them read 5:00 minutes of K answers. Furthermore, time trade off's never shake out linearly. 

As far as addressing things on the K or the case...if it's a case take out, read it on the case. It makes your 1NC look more responsive to the judge, keeps the debate orderly, and helps them to track the debate across the speeches when they're preparing the RFD. 

 

The big question is what the hell do you need 8/9 minutes of K for? When I've gone 1 off, my 1N has out 3 links, the external impact, the alt, and impact framing in 3:30. Granted I'm guessing most of you aren't as fast, but there's no way that would take anywhere close to the entire 1NC. Something big I've noticed judging HS debates and looking through the V-debates here is an efficiency problem; pointless or redundant cards are thrown in haphazardly. Outside of performance debates it's confounding what could take so long to get out. 

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

×