Jump to content
Adidas06

2ac K strats?

Recommended Posts

What do yall's 2ac's to K's look like? I remember hearing some acronym, it was like soapt, or poats, or something...

 

Specifically, how do your blocks differ when running policy affs vs k affs? And what are your most common 1ar/2ar strats you go for against the K?

 

I'm aware that your A2's change depending on the K, but, you know, in general...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are specific frameworks one can use (weigh Aff against alt, k bad, don't evaluate reps, etc) and also kritiks of kritiks exist as well (those depend on the content of the K itself).

 

I haven't seen a round where any 2ar went for the perm yet. It's hard to win on that when the alt actually competes.

Edited by Raj
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-Perm

O-Offense

S-Solvency

T-Theory

A-Alt

L-Link

 

I always include multiple perms, link turns, turns, impact defense, and general defense against the theory. Aka cap bad; cap is good.

 

Wait wait wait....... you're supposed to read this stuff in an order?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait wait wait....... you're supposed to read this stuff in an order?!?!?

The order doesn't matter at all. A 2AC to the capitalism K might be look like this, as an example, but could be very different:

 

-Framework to prefer policymaking

-Case outweighs the impact

-No link

-Link turn

-Perm do both

-Capitalism is good

-The alt can't solve

-Theory about utopian alts bad

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The order doesn't matter at all. A 2AC to the capitalism K might be look like this, as an example, but could be very different:

 

-Framework to prefer policymaking

-Case outweighs the impact

-No link

-Link turn

-Perm do both

-Capitalism is good

-The alt can't solve

-Theory about utopian alts bad

this is a double turn. do not do this. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F Postal. Essentially what One-Off said, but don't forget framework. It's usually something like "Structural violence isn't as bad as nuke war", "Ontology doesn't come first", etc. Helps on the impact calc, A LOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F Postal. Essentially what One-Off said, but don't forget framework. It's usually something like "Structural violence isn't as bad as nuke war", "Ontology doesn't come first", etc. Helps on the impact calc, A LOT

that is not framework. framework is a theoretical issue that questions whether or not the alternative should be weighed against the aff, whether it should be grounded in institutions, or the such. while those cards are often read against criticisms, they are not integral to framework in it's essence, they're just defense to their methods and/or a reason why yours should be preferred. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F Postal. Essentially what One-Off said, but don't forget framework. It's usually something like "Structural violence isn't as bad as nuke war", "Ontology doesn't come first", etc. Helps on the impact calc, A LOT

Framework is included in Theory, and @OP, this is just a general strategy for tackeling K's. No order, just a catchy name to help remembering things you need to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some fw args (atleast that I have seen) resemble procedurals (like weigh case or policymaking), but its kinda hard to classify all of them under theory.

 

The only place I have seen more than one "K of K'" is the psychoanalysis k from utnif for this seson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I always just put FW at the top and then went down the K flow.

 

 

When hitting a half decent K team, my perm 2ars always failed. The neg just stacked up too much shit on the perm flow. The majority of successful 2ars against good K teams were framework; I find that many K teams are lazy about addressing it till it bites them back later.

However, if (when) I'm running a K aff next year, framework won't be a viable option. Any advice on how to pull of the perm debate on aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I always just put FW at the top and then went down the K flow.

 

 

When hitting a half decent K team, my perm 2ars always failed. The neg just stacked up too much shit on the perm flow. The majority of successful 2ars against good K teams were framework; I find that many K teams are lazy about addressing it till it bites them back later.

However, if (when) I'm running a K aff next year, framework won't be a viable option. Any advice on how to pull of the perm debate on aff?

Have the 1ar/2ar Pivot to whatever your reasons why including the aff within their model of politics is a necessary corrective or strategy to resolve what ever you're criticizing and then do the impact calculus of your NB's to the permuation compared to whatever DA's they have to the permuation .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I always just put FW at the top and then went down the K flow.

 

 

When hitting a half decent K team, my perm 2ars always failed. 

Do u happen to know the specific perms that you used?

The neg just stacked up too much shit on the perm flow. The majority of successful 2ars against good K teams were framework; I find that many K teams are lazy about addressing it till it bites them back later.

Do you remember if they tried to link it back to the k or put disads/theory on it?

However, if (when) I'm running a K aff next year, framework won't be a viable option.

You can still use "weigh case," reps focus bad, discourse irrelevant, and other things for ur fw. I assume ur aff is kritikal beyond the point of USFG action?

Any advice on how to pull of the perm debate on aff?

All depends on the type of K, but to add on to what Mr. EragonSaph said, you also have to win that the perm is theoretically legit.

 

Are you wishing to advocate the perm in ur 2ar or do you just want to use the fact that the 2 advocacies don't compete as a reason for the judge to give you the ballot?

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is not framework. framework is a theoretical issue that questions whether or not the alternative should be weighed against the aff, whether it should be grounded in institutions, or the such. while those cards are often read against criticisms, they are not integral to framework in it's essence, they're just defense to their methods and/or a reason why yours should be preferred. 

 

I think he meant Framing, not Framework.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The order doesn't matter at all. A 2AC to the capitalism K might be look like this, as an example, but could be very different:

 

-Framework to prefer policymaking

-Case outweighs the impact

-No link

-Link turn

-Perm do both

-Capitalism is good

-The alt can't solve

-Theory about utopian alts bad

 

What I'm asking: Is the P.O.S.T.A.L. acronym an preferred/ suggested order (it does seem to be organized around importance) or is a just a list of things to cover?

 

Also, side question: Who gets to decide the order of argumentation in a debate: If the Affirmative reads a Perm first thing on the flow, are you supposed to read answers to the perm first thing or other work: I know some judges have a preference so they don't have to draw lines all over their flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm asking: Is the P.O.S.T.A.L. acronym an preferred/ suggested order (it does seem to be organized around importance) or is a just a list of things to cover?

 

Also, side question: Who gets to decide the order of argumentation in a debate: If the Affirmative reads a Perm first thing on the flow, are you supposed to read answers to the perm first thing or other work: I know some judges have a preference so they don't have to draw lines all over their flow.

 

 

I've been taught to read POSTAL in that order just because it keeps things clean, although I don't always do it that way...

 

I would definitely say that the block should be responding to the 2ac in the order that the 2ac read their responses. Not all teams will do  this, but I think any other method risks messy line drawing and just pissing the judge off more than they already are at eight in the morning. Fine, read your overview at the top of the 2nc, but the line by line should be consistent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

What I'm asking: Is the P.O.S.T.A.L. acronym an preferred/ suggested order (it does seem to be organized around importance) or is a just a list of things to cover?

 

Also, side question: Who gets to decide the order of argumentation in a debate: If the Affirmative reads a Perm first thing on the flow, are you supposed to read answers to the perm first thing or other work: I know some judges have a preference so they don't have to draw lines all over their flow.

I put link debate before alt debate, but order isn't that relevant. However, you might want to put framework first to tell the judge how you want the argument to be evaluated, as it is supposed to be apriori to your substantive Args.

 

I don't know if the judge would flow from top to bottom in your scenario or just put the "out of order" 2nc answers to wherever the 2ac made them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 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

×