Jump to content
yuhboy

Questions on K affs

Recommended Posts

Does the advocacy of a K aff always function like an alt in a Kritik? Do they always work outside of the state, and be totally anti-statist? Do they have to mention this in the 1AC? For a k aff I'm trying to make, I talk about affirming grassroots movement among people (which is aff def of USFG), engaging in infra-politics of refusal, and just working without the state. Is it also 100% necessary to pre-empt framework arguments the neg could make in the 1AC?

I just want to make a strong K aff, and be sure I'm not going on the wrong track. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A K aff is just a kritikal aff which means that the thesis of the Aff is derived from a criticism but that doesn't mean that you have to work outside of the state for example MBA read this settlerism aff that had a plan text and it was VERY successful. K affs with a plan can actually be quite strategic because it no-links you out of framework. As for preempts, I would say that usually you should try using preempts as a sort of module depending on what you think the neg is going to be. For example, if you know that the team you're facing usually reads FW against K affs then you should put framework preempts in the 1AC but if say they read a K like antiblackness or settlerism you should have preemptive permutation or no link cards in the 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. Lots of K affs do take an anti-state stance because it synergizes with the literature base they are drawing from. I ran a Deleuze aff last year for which I would determine the 2AC's stance on the state based on framework standards read in the 1NC. I could say that the state is always bad and inaccessible, or I could say that we simply shouldn't be forced to debate in a particular way (usually some kritik of the metaphysics implied by predictability or something to that effect).

I actually wrote my sophomores a pro-state "K aff" last year that advocated grassroots movements with the end-goal of implementing anti-capitalist reforms. The main argument against framework was 2-fold, that 1) we still defended the desirability of the resolution as an endpoint, so we met their interpretation, and that 2) it was more valuable to debate strategies to implement the resolution than to imagine ourselves as idealized technocrats. It was meant as a bait and switch for framework to draw out the strategy and then reveal that really we were "topical" just in an unconventional and better way.

The upshot of this is just to say that you should have a reason you shouldn't be or shouldn't have to be topical: why shouldn't we have to debate about fiat? You need offense to this question. David Graeber has written a number of pieces that argue against the concept of policy and devising it, which have made their way into Michigan's Border K file. Gordon Mitchell's 1998 article is often cited in K debates on how traditional modelscan create the spectator mentality of the detached technocrat or corporate lawyer, which itself is relevant to grassroots, but also could be used to argue why creating a perfectly fair debate shouldn't take priority over creating a debate that produces the most democratic education. 

Edited by seanarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, seanarchy said:

we still defended the desirability of the resolution as an endpoint, so we met their interpretation

This is why we can't have nice things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheSnowball said:

This is why we can't have nice things.

Yeah probably. I think it's still a really interesting take on topicality. The idea isn't original though so if anyone is interested in watching this strategy executed find Cal MS vs UCO HS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 11:31 PM, seanarchy said:

It depends. Lots of K affs do take an anti-state stance because it synergizes with the literature base they are drawing from. I ran a Deleuze aff last year for which I would determine the 2AC's stance on the state based on framework standards read in the 1NC. I could say that the state is always bad and inaccessible, or I could say that we simply shouldn't be forced to debate in a particular way (usually some kritik of the metaphysics implied by predictability or something to that effect).

I actually wrote my sophomores a pro-state "K aff" last year that advocated grassroots movements with the end-goal of implementing anti-capitalist reforms. The main argument against framework was 2-fold, that 1) we still defended the desirability of the resolution as an endpoint, so we met their interpretation, and that 2) it was more valuable to debate strategies to implement the resolution than to imagine ourselves as idealized technocrats. It was meant as a bait and switch for framework to draw out the strategy and then reveal that really we were "topical" just in an unconventional and better way.

The upshot of this is just to say that you should have a reason you shouldn't be or shouldn't have to be topical: why shouldn't we have to debate about fiat? You need offense to this question. David Graeber has written a number of pieces that argue against the concept of policy and devising it, which have made their way into Michigan's Border K file. Gordon Mitchell's 1998 article is often cited in K debates on how traditional modelscan create the spectator mentality of the detached technocrat or corporate lawyer, which itself is relevant to grassroots, but also could be used to argue why creating a perfectly fair debate shouldn't take priority over creating a debate that produces the most democratic education. 

Could you email me? I'm needing some help with my K aff and you seem like you know what's up.

 

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

×