Jump to content
queenofdisaster

Running/Responding to K's?

Recommended Posts

Lately, my team has been doing practice rounds to prep my partner and I for an upcoming tournament. All the varsity debaters on my team, however, don't debate in the same style that the people I hit usually do. One major difference is that 1) They run k's, and 2) They spread (irrelevant, but it helps describe what kind of people I hit.) So, most of the things I've been dropping to are K's.

 

So how does one effectively respond to a K? How does one have offense to a K?

 

I haven't run a K yet, but I know the parts to it; I would really like to run one (that isn't cap) at a circuit where the majority of the judges can comprehend K's (not UIL). Can someone also explain what "the story of the link" means?

 

Also, theory. I could use some help with the gist of theory, too.

 

Thank you in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A frontline to a K might look like this:

 

1) Framework (remember to always have some type of fw especially if you're running a policy aff) - a common fw argument for policy affs is the "policy maker framework which basically looks like this: 

1)FW – the affirmative gets to weigh the consequences of the plan and the negative gets competitive CPs and Alternatives

a) Decision-making – a stable stasis point for deliberation and comparison is necessary to learn to effectively make decisions

b )   Fairness – if we can’t weigh the aff, it lets them moot the entire 1AC, making being aff be impossible 

c) This debate should center around institutions—the role of the ballot is for the team that best provides a strategy for changing the institutions that constitute violence as opposed to changing the knowledge production the neg falsely believes constitutes those institutions

Themba-Nixon 2000 (Makani, Executive Director of the Praxis Project, Former California Staffer, “Colorlines,” Oakland: July 31, 2000, Vol. 3, Issue 2, Pg. 12)

 

(The following order of points isn't exactly important just put your arguments from most important to least, etc)

 

2) No Link - *insert a card or i guess an analytic if you don't have a card about why your aff doesn't link to their argument*

 

3) Perm do both

 

4) Alt Fails/ no alt solvency/etc - *insert card about why the alternative doesn't work*

 

5) a "No root cause" of impact argument

 

6) some other types of perms

 

7) Maybe a prerequisite argument or a turn case argument depending on the aff and the k (the aff comes before the k because of *insert reason*)

 

honestly your frontline relies heavily on what aff you're running and what k they're running.

Edited by jenxtang
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theory is just basically calling someone out for being abusive in round.

 

A theory shell is roughly structured like this:

 

A. Interpretation: some sort of interpretation of what the neg/aff should be allowed to do. 

 

B. Violation: how the aff/neg violated your interpretation

 

C. Reasons to prefer

1. A reason why your interp is good

2. Another reason why 

3. More Reasons

 

Here's an example theory shell on agent cp's bad from a camp file:

 

Agent CPs Bad

 

Interpretation: Agent CPs are only legitimate if they have a corporate specific solvency advocate.

 

Violation: The neg doesn't have a specific solvency advocate for their cp

 

Standards:

1.    voter for fairness and education—kills education because we’re focused on specifying the agent and we don’t get to have a debate about why the plan is good or bad. Kills fairness because the CP steals the aff’s offense in the round and the aff has nothing to fight for.

 

2.    moots the 1AC—the CP takes away our offense. The affirmative team should be able to talk about why our aff is good and weigh it against Neg offense. Without offense the aff has a large disadvantage in the round.

 

3.    Unpredictable—the CP can use any agent it wants, and there’s no way for the affirmative to be able to predict and prepare for all of them.

 

4.    Infinitely regressive—justifies ASPEC which progresses to having to specify more and more things which kills the debate because we aren’t talking about policy, we’re talking how to specify something further and further. 

 

Reject the team, not the argument

Edited by jenxtang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theory is just basically calling someone out for being abusive in round.

 

A theory shell is roughly structured like this:

 

A. Interpretation: some sort of interpretation of what the neg/aff should be allowed to do. 

 

B. Violation: how the aff/neg violated your interpretation

 

C. Reasons to prefer

1. A reason why your interp is good

2. Another reason why 

3. More Reasons

 

Here's an example theory shell on agent cp's bad from a camp file:

 

Agent CPs Bad

 

Interpretation: Agent CPs are only legitimate if they have a corporate specific solvency advocate.

 

Violation: The neg doesn't have a specific solvency advocate for their cp

 

Standards:

1.    voter for fairness and education—kills education because we’re focused on specifying the agent and we don’t get to have a debate about why the plan is good or bad. Kills fairness because the CP steals the aff’s offense in the round and the aff has nothing to fight for.

 

2.    moots the 1AC—the CP takes away our offense. The affirmative team should be able to talk about why our aff is good and weigh it against Neg offense. Without offense the aff has a large disadvantage in the round.

 

3.    Unpredictable—the CP can use any agent it wants, and there’s no way for the affirmative to be able to predict and prepare for all of them.

 

4.    Infinitely regressive—justifies ASPEC which progresses to having to specify more and more things which kills the debate because we aren’t talking about policy, we’re talking how to specify something further and further. 

 

Reject the team, not the argument

Probably a stupid question, but why reject the team and not the argument? 

It kind of sounds like whoever is making the theory argument concedes that whatever they're calling out is good.

 

Also, another question, if I may, but what is potential/in round abuse? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a stupid question, but why reject the team and not the argument? 

It kind of sounds like whoever is making the theory argument concedes that whatever they're calling out is good.

When you say reject the team, not the argument, you want to make it sound like they were so abusive that they should lose based off of that. So it's not really saying that the argument was good but rather that instead of just not evaluating the argument because it was abusive, the judge should directly drop the team instead.

 

And in round abuse is basically the abusive stuff that they do in round that causes you to be unable to debate fairly/educationally/etc

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...