Jump to content
TheNightOwl

How to explain Ks/K affs?

Recommended Posts

Ok, so I currently debate in a region which is not too open to progressive arguments, so I was wondering how to explain why Ks and K affs are legitimate.

 

My reasoning for Ks is that because fiat is illusory, the judge should vote on real-world benefits first (such as educational value), and that the opponent's plan inherently contains wrong/immoral assumptions about the world which affect the real world and the views of the debaters/judges in the room and future debaters/judges that hear the aff's ideas if the aff is not shown that their ideas are wrong through a neg ballot. Is there anything else I need to explain, as it seems that if I only say what's written above, the aff can easily argue that they don't actually support the ideas/assumptions found in the resolution and are instead bound to them by the resolution?

I don't understand how K affs are legitimate myself, so if someone could explain why the aff doesn't have to uphold the resolution and can kritik it, that would be much appreciated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I currently debate in a region which is not too open to progressive arguments, so I was wondering how to explain why Ks and K affs are legitimate.

 

My reasoning for Ks is that because fiat is illusory, the judge should vote on real-world benefits first (such as educational value), and that the opponent's plan inherently contains wrong/immoral assumptions about the world which affect the real world and the views of the debaters/judges in the room and future debaters/judges that hear the aff's ideas if the aff is not shown that their ideas are wrong through a neg ballot. Is there anything else I need to explain, as it seems that if I only say what's written above, the aff can easily argue that they don't actually support the ideas/assumptions found in the resolution and are instead bound to them by the resolution?

 

I don't understand how K affs are legitimate myself, so if someone could explain why the aff doesn't have to uphold the resolution and can kritik it, that would be much appreciated.

 

Here are some benefits of kritikal debating in general (there are more/less things depending on what exactly the aff is):

 

Urban Debating/Fairness – A school that is well funded, heavily resourced will always win the traditional policy debate because of the potentially more resourced research staff, coaching staff..etc. Kritikal Affirmatives or approaches allow for the urban, under resourced team to approach the resolution from a point that is accessible to them, this doesn’t necessarily mean straight up race or gender debates, but in the sense that an urban debater can specialize in one form of philosophy and apply their philosophy, their experiences, social location, things that are accessible to various portions of the resolution. In kritikal debate it isn’t necessarily about cards, or spewing out empirical data..so it isn’t skewed towards richer teams.

 

Education – There will always be those teams that are just hardcore policy (plan texts, politics da’s) that educate students in certain modes of politics and social science but kritikal approaches provide a different mode of education that is valuable. The kritik is a philosophical investigation and criticism of a plan or resolution, one that takes into account morality, emotion, ethics, things that traditional policy brushes over. K debates to me are way more valuable than a policy round, I gain skills and morality that are probably more useful than knowing about hundreds of ways the world dies and ends in nuclear apocalypse.

 

Competition – I mean, it’s just another argument. It is yet another way to test the plan, just instead of competing nuke war scenarios, it’s more questioning the ethics/morals/philosophical repercussions of certain legal reforms like I said earlier.

 

Social Movements – Sure I’m not saying reading Wilderson is going to solve antiblackness, but it does open up debate into a forum where we can have these conversations (and I’m not talking about some of those bootleg white teams who read Wilderson purely to win, you’re an asswipe if you do that btw) but it is a way to situate the conversation to something like antiblackness. Debate becomes a place where we can voice our opinions and debate methods to resolve certain social issues within the context of the resolution and our experiences/social locations. For example, domestic surveillance is a highly racialized activity, kritikal approaches can tackle racist/gendered/ableist/anthropocentric/capitalistic ..etc violence and ethicacy that a simple policy aff would never go in depth to (which I see is somewhat possible with next years rez) Also the potential to get individuals involved and interested in social movements in their community - I was inspired myself to become involved in local racial activism after a performance debate round in which I could tell, the debaters were performing from genuine conviction

 

As for your question on why K affs can criticize the rez - there are a few approaches a K Aff can take:

 

Criticizes the Status Quo but philosophical - These Affs are still within the resolution, but instead of nuke scenarios, they use philosophies to justify why the status quo is flawed and offer non-legal methods to resolve them - they will say it is fair because it is still a discussion of the topic if not a topical discussion, they still access fairness. It's not like they randomly pulled some philosophy and are just talking about it, they did so within the topic somehow.

 

Criticizes the Status Quo but legal - Same thing as the first one, but offers a legal method to resolve. For example, an aff criticizes the biopolitical hierarchies created by domestic surveillance and uses philosophical analysis to do so but in the end offers a normal USFG should plan text - these are what some call semi-kritikal affs or kritikal policy affs. This is justifiable because it's still a topical policy aff - just uses moral and ethical reasoning.

 

Criticizes the Resolution - There is something inherently flawed with the resolution, the way it says something, or the way it maybe makes us look at things, debating on those morally and ethically flawed grounds only makes things worse, which according to the aff justifies their criticism.

 

And are u from Irvington in Fremont,CA? Didn't know y'all did policy :P

 

Hope this helped - I'm sure some of the more senior members like Snarf/Snark could give some good explanation too

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I currently debate in a region which is not too open to progressive arguments, so I was wondering how to explain why Ks and K affs are legitimate.

 

My reasoning for Ks is that because fiat is illusory, the judge should vote on real-world benefits first (such as educational value), and that the opponent's plan inherently contains wrong/immoral assumptions about the world which affect the real world and the views of the debaters/judges in the room and future debaters/judges that hear the aff's ideas if the aff is not shown that their ideas are wrong through a neg ballot. Is there anything else I need to explain, as it seems that if I only say what's written above, the aff can easily argue that they don't actually support the ideas/assumptions found in the resolution and are instead bound to them by the resolution?

 

I don't understand how K affs are legitimate myself, so if someone could explain why the aff doesn't have to uphold the resolution and can kritik it, that would be much appreciated.

 

 

The easiest way in a less progressive district to go for a K is to pretend you aren't reading a K. this would basically mean that you characterize your argument as a Disadvantage (the plan is bad because it uses the state which is a form of coercion) with an a counterplan (reject coercion). you would probably lose that your K is outweighed by an aff if they win utilitarianism comes first. You should make some sort of argument about how deontology (rule based morals/also known as a D-rule in debate jargon) should come first and why utilitarianism is bankrupt or how scholarship is more important than consequences of the plan (I.e. if you poke one hole in the aff you win because the judge should be like a teacher in order to foster a more educational public sphere). If you are in a community that accepts counterplans you should say that the K is legitimate because it is mutually exclusive (I.e. the plan and the counterplan/alternative cannot happen simultaneously/at the same time because the plan alone or with the counterplan is still bad so we should do the plan alone). if they are not okay with K's.... You might be better off not reading one and adapt. 

 

K affs honestly break "the rules" but say K affs say they are bad in the first place (unless they read a plan text that is topical). They would say that there should be more than only arguing the USFG should do something is good because .... X reason. If your community isn't receptive to k's, they probably are going to dislike K affs more. That being said. your community might like soft left affs (read a topical aff that focuses on "small impacts" like poverty, starvation, etc.  If they hate spreading they would hate big impacts (usually) which makes these affs more real world and easier for them to comprehend. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some benefits of kritikal debating in general (there are more/less things depending on what exactly the aff is):

 

Urban Debating/Fairness – A school that is well funded, heavily resourced will always win the traditional policy debate because of the potentially more resourced research staff, coaching staff..etc. Kritikal Affirmatives or approaches allow for the urban, under resourced team to approach the resolution from a point that is accessible to them, this doesn’t necessarily mean straight up race or gender debates, but in the sense that an urban debater can specialize in one form of philosophy and apply their philosophy, their experiences, social location, things that are accessible to various portions of the resolution. In kritikal debate it isn’t necessarily about cards, or spewing out empirical data..so it isn’t skewed towards richer teams.

 

Education – There will always be those teams that are just hardcore policy (plan texts, politics da’s) that educate students in certain modes of politics and social science but kritikal approaches provide a different mode of education that is valuable. The kritik is a philosophical investigation and criticism of a plan or resolution, one that takes into account morality, emotion, ethics, things that traditional policy brushes over. K debates to me are way more valuable than a policy round, I gain skills and morality that are probably more useful than knowing about hundreds of ways the world dies and ends in nuclear apocalypse.

 

Competition – I mean, it’s just another argument. It is yet another way to test the plan, just instead of competing nuke war scenarios, it’s more questioning the ethics/morals/philosophical repercussions of certain legal reforms like I said earlier.

 

Social Movements – Sure I’m not saying reading Wilderson is going to solve antiblackness, but it does open up debate into a forum where we can have these conversations (and I’m not talking about some of those bootleg white teams who read Wilderson purely to win, you’re an asswipe if you do that btw) but it is a way to situate the conversation to something like antiblackness. Debate becomes a place where we can voice our opinions and debate methods to resolve certain social issues within the context of the resolution and our experiences/social locations. For example, domestic surveillance is a highly racialized activity, kritikal approaches can tackle racist/gendered/ableist/anthropocentric/capitalistic ..etc violence and ethicacy that a simple policy aff would never go in depth to (which I see is somewhat possible with next years rez) Also the potential to get individuals involved and interested in social movements in their community - I was inspired myself to become involved in local racial activism after a performance debate round in which I could tell, the debaters were performing from genuine conviction

 

As for your question on why K affs can criticize the rez - there are a few approaches a K Aff can take:

 

Criticizes the Status Quo but philosophical - These Affs are still within the resolution, but instead of nuke scenarios, they use philosophies to justify why the status quo is flawed and offer non-legal methods to resolve them - they will say it is fair because it is still a discussion of the topic if not a topical discussion, they still access fairness. It's not like they randomly pulled some philosophy and are just talking about it, they did so within the topic somehow.

 

Criticizes the Status Quo but legal - Same thing as the first one, but offers a legal method to resolve. For example, an aff criticizes the biopolitical hierarchies created by domestic surveillance and uses philosophical analysis to do so but in the end offers a normal USFG should plan text - these are what some call semi-kritikal affs or kritikal policy affs. This is justifiable because it's still a topical policy aff - just uses moral and ethical reasoning.

 

Criticizes the Resolution - There is something inherently flawed with the resolution, the way it says something, or the way it maybe makes us look at things, debating on those morally and ethically flawed grounds only makes things worse, which according to the aff justifies their criticism.

 

And are u from Irvington in Fremont,CA? Didn't know y'all did policy :P

 

Hope this helped - I'm sure some of the more senior members like Snarf/Snark could give some good explanation too

 

Thanks!

Yep, I'm from that Irvington.

Well...we don't do policy, but most of the stuff from policy debate works in parli, so I figured it'd be fine posting here.

Edited by TheNightOwl
  • Upvote 1

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...