Jump to content
MattYee

Planless Aff?

Recommended Posts

So, I compete in a primarily stock/comms area and am interested in running a K-Aff. I found one that I like but it doesn't have a plan. I'm sure this is a novice question but how would I go about running a case without a plan? Also, how do I defend T? How does the USFG substantially reduce anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 99% of planless K affs, the usfg doesn't do anything. You have to have some reason that the model of debate reading a planless aff (or whatever you're doing more specifically) is more valuable than traditional debate, usually for some reason connected to the 1ac. Example: an afropessimism aff that advocates guerilla warfare and burning it all down. They might say plans invest hope and time in planning an always antiblack world, or that topical debate isn't fair for black people bc of biases about what a model debater looks like (rich, white, eloquent, moderate, etc.). It really depends on the aff. For any of the Deleuze affs I read, I might have said predictability is a part of reactionary metaphysics, or that topicality ignores the slippages in language. What is the aff you want to defend? Is there a file, advocacy, or summary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, seanarchy said:

In 99% of planless K affs, the usfg doesn't do anything. You have to have some reason that the model of debate reading a planless aff (or whatever you're doing more specifically) is more valuable than traditional debate, usually for some reason connected to the 1ac. Example: an afropessimism aff that advocates guerilla warfare and burning it all down. They might say plans invest hope and time in planning an always antiblack world, or that topical debate isn't fair for black people bc of biases about what a model debater looks like (rich, white, eloquent, moderate, etc.). It really depends on the aff. For any of the Deleuze affs I read, I might have said predictability is a part of reactionary metaphysics, or that topicality ignores the slippages in language. What is the aff you want to defend? Is there a file, advocacy, or summary?

Quantum Life. My understanding of the case is that borders hinder our ability to understand the cosmos. But idk. The case is written largely in incomprehensibly verbose postmodern BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this aff is a bit more complex. The general thesis might be that blackness exists as an unknowability or nonknowledge outside rational humanism. It's analogous to how quantum physics is a realm of unknowability outside traditional physics - we can't trace it precisely b/c it already uses a lens which renders that thing we wish to observe non-existent. Humanism is incapable of registering blackness b/c trying to catalog it starts from the European human as the default. I would strongly caution against reading this aff unless know exactly what you're saying. It's full of Kant, Deleuze, math, and really deep references in black studies. Also, if you're in a stock area this is really not a good idea. This is tenuous from the perspective of the nat circuit. Honestly, if you're in a real stock circuit, like judges actually only care about stocks, then don't read a K aff. They are almost never topical unless the neg is totally incompetent, and rely on disads to topicality. They also usually don't "solve" so much as problematize or perform, unless you advocate a thing happening (which this aff doesn't. It's a research model that problematizes humanist metaphysics). A priori judge intervention for stocks being a voter is game over.

That said, the framework answer might be a mash of the two things I mentioned earlier - predictability is an anti-black metaphysics, blackness is a slippage that can't be rationally cataloged under topical definitions, and plans presume a hopeful/progressive humanist view on time. Calvin Warren might be a good resource to start researching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the responses. I've been prepping this case for the progressive judges in the area. I have a good deal of research under my belt. I just can't seem to imagine how to address T arguments, especially USFG and reduce. It seems as though the plan advocates open borders. But it doesn't have a plan and it only advocates epistemological/ontological change. Plz help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post an extended answer later after I finish school work, but read the Moten ev. It's the main solvency ev for the research model the aff affirms. The last two De Silva cards look like framework preempts. Plans rely on causation and temporality, which is anti-black for whatever reason. A plan has a stable subject affirming it, which is not black. Traditional scenario analysis is anti-black b/c calculation. The topic is based on anti-black categories of citizenship and borders. Look for these sorts of args in the cards and you should have a better understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When reading a k aff, you should be most worried about framework, because it's what the majority of your debates will be about. I don't think framework is a particularly good argument, and this aff especially is built to answer it. You should have a generic top level answer to framework that you can read in every 2AC that just has generics like we meet, a counter interpretation, how the counter interpretation solves their offense, and DAs to framework. You should also have specific answers to framework arguments like switch side debate or dogma that you can read depending on what was in the 1NC or block. You can be very successful running a k aff if you have good answers to framework, and you will likely win the majority of your debates. You should read the entirety of your evidence for this aff and think about how that relates to common framework arguments, then write blocks based on that, because this aff is very different than many other k affs. Good luck!

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

×