Jump to content
sfrpeterm

Forced Clash K

Recommended Posts

Where can I find a file and/or a wiki entry for a forced clash K? I've seen it before run against Riverwood AD this year, but I'm not sure who so I can't find the cites. If anyone knows where I can find it or has backfiles willing to share or trade for it would be greatly appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://hspolicy16.debatecoaches.org/Norman+North/Davidson-Rogers+Neg

 

edit: if you're looking for more stuff, go to framework files and ctrl+F "agonism."

 

edit 2: I attached a highlighted version of the wiki citation.

Agonism K.docx

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think this argument is great tbh, like read FW or cap or something. I can't imagine winning the ballot with this.

I think it's better as a standard on FW than an independent argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's better as a standard on FW than an independent argument.

 

100% agree - if anything, this should be an IL the 2nc makes when explaining their fairness impact on T.

 

This argument is pretty silly as a K - all planless affs have some normative statement that you could theoretically disagree with without being morally reprehensible with countermethodologies, generic method K's, etc. In fact, many policy affs include similar "moral truisms" like racial segregation or sexual assault being bad. The real reason why that aforementioned ground is undesirable isn't because it's inherently repugnant. It's because it strategically disadvantages the negative, especially since these affs often reclarify themselves in the 2ac/1ar to skirt links while using permutations (thus why this should be tied back to the question of fairness).

 

You should point out why there's no comparative literature to specifically contest the normative statements against many non-topical affirmatives which always leaves the NEG structurally behind in terms of their ground and its specificity. Topical affirmatives have a higher probability of preventing (or at least minimizing) this.

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...