Jump to content

How to answer generic K links

Recommended Posts

Hello folks, 

When I am running a policy aff, especially a soft left one, how do I answer generic Kritik links like the aff uses USFG or the aff is white saviorism or links from Antiblackness teams that we don't centre our discourse around black people . The way I have been doing in the past is either reading a bunch of state good cards or at least in this topic, say it's negative state action so we are taking power away from the state/ departure from the status quo. Are there any analytical responses or cards/ authors i can cut to answer them?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey- Good question. So you will need to think of how these link arguments relate to your AFF. If they are simply reading a USFG bad link, you need to point out that the card is not specific to your AFF. That means the judge shouldn't weight it because it isn't applicable to your specific mechanism. USFG good cards can help, but try and find some that are specific to your AFF. 

You could also try a link turn. Since you are soft left, this could be a strong answer. So think of how your AFF makes a demand on the government/breaks down capitalism.

Don't do a no link arg with a link turn arg. Just pick one. 

Let me know if this helps. 

Edited by debategirl52
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft left affs are good at answering some Ks like cap or security, but there are a lot of Ks that link just as hard if not harder to soft left affs. Generic k links shouldn't be that hard to answer, as they're mostly either links of omission which are easy to answer or say something like "you use the state" which you can answer with reformism good and state inevitable stuff. I don't think that doing a lot of the work on why the state is good then saying you're negative state action is very convincing, because they kind of contradict (if the state is so good, why are you taking away its power?). For a soft left aff, probably don't focus as much on state good, but focus more on things like negative state action, reformism good, state inevitable, cede the political, etc. For negative state action, definitely try out the Newman 10 evidence, but I can't think of the cites for anything else right now. Most good k teams will be able to answer negative state action and reformism pretty well, but I've seen affs win the state inevitable and cede the political debate many times. Think up the answers that sound the most persuasive to you against these arguments and write them out so you at least have generic pre-written answers. Any good k team will also have at least a few links that are specific to your aff, and these are probably more important to answer because they're a more convincing 2NR. It's hard to pre-prepare against these some of the time, but just read through your aff and think of anything that could be spun as problematic. Good luck!

  • Upvote 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