Jump to content
Arrow1124

Never seen Kritiks

Recommended Posts

How do you answer a kritik that you've never seen before? There are some teams that make their own kritiks and how do you answer them if that is the first time seeing them? I run a policy affirmative with a kritikal advantage if that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A policy aff with a critical advantage almost always is locked into the perm. 

What you should keep in mind are the parts you need to win for the perm:

1- extend the exact perm you want and explain how it works

2- perm solves. The perm solving needs to explain why it resolves the various links to the k, not necessarily do exactly what the alt is. If there are some links you can never solve (like a state action bad link), flag that you're impact turning them and flag that impact turn as a net benefit

3- net benefits to the perm- offensive reasons why the perm should be preferred over the k alt.

So with this in mind, consider the generic arguments that you can make to support your aff against the k. A generic frontline would look like:

- plan action does something critical to challenge power generally OR what your plan resolves spills over into challenging general social problems, should have a built in state action key warrant - perm solvency - should be built into your 1ac advantage internal links - articulate why the k alt cant solve it - also makes your advantage a net benefit to the perm

- state action key to solve - generic 

- state action good turn - can be something like "cede the political"

- generic alt offense - this takes reading into how their alt works. If at the basic level they make ontology arguments, say ontological focus bad. If they say they're a movement, movements bad. Etc etc. All alt offense can be framed as net benefits to the perm AND has the dual effect of tanking alt solvency. Taking out alt solvency means even if they win a link to the perm, they cant uniquely leverage that as offense because THEY don't solve the link.

- generic alt solvency answers - prioritize alt offense because it can also take out alt solvency as well, thus is more multipurpose. 

 

Other notes: 

- making "no k's allowed" framework args are hokey and not persuasive unless you have a traditionally minded judge. Making "we should get to weigh the aff" framework arguments are still kind of pointless. When teams make the argument that we shouldn't evaluate if the plan happens, they're making an argument about the education or framing of the aff being bad. So the right answer is to have "our epistemology good" arguments like "scenario planning good" or even use of the state is good sort of works here. This is much more directly engaging and persuasive than a theory argument. 

- always look for how a new k ties into other critiques. Chances are they are not totally new and are tied into some vein of thought debate has already done to death. Cross x is a good place to parse out links to find a path back to pulling answers from your a2 cap k, a2 whiteness k, etc files.

- lastly, explanation trumps cards. Detailing how the perm works and how it can resolve links to the k requires detail and thought, not evidence from authors. Btw, answering specific links with the perm should be in the 1ar, not the 2ac. It's a little pointless in the 2ac when the block will make new link args.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AlistairTheKDebater said:

first off, always perm, even if you just say "we can perm their alt"

 

 

10 hours ago, OGRawrcat said:

A policy aff with a critical advantage almost always is locked into the perm. 

What you should keep in mind are the parts you need to win for the perm:

1- extend the exact perm you want and explain how it works

2- perm solves. The perm solving needs to explain why it resolves the various links to the k, not necessarily do exactly what the alt is. If there are some links you can never solve (like a state action bad link), flag that you're impact turning them and flag that impact turn as a net benefit

3- net benefits to the perm- offensive reasons why the perm should be preferred over the k alt.

So with this in mind, consider the generic arguments that you can make to support your aff against the k. A generic frontline would look like:

- plan action does something critical to challenge power generally OR what your plan resolves spills over into challenging general social problems, should have a built in state action key warrant - perm solvency - should be built into your 1ac advantage internal links - articulate why the k alt cant solve it - also makes your advantage a net benefit to the perm

- state action key to solve - generic 

- state action good turn - can be something like "cede the political"

- generic alt offense - this takes reading into how their alt works. If at the basic level they make ontology arguments, say ontological focus bad. If they say they're a movement, movements bad. Etc etc. All alt offense can be framed as net benefits to the perm AND has the dual effect of tanking alt solvency. Taking out alt solvency means even if they win a link to the perm, they cant uniquely leverage that as offense because THEY don't solve the link.

- generic alt solvency answers - prioritize alt offense because it can also take out alt solvency as well, thus is more multipurpose. 

 

Other notes: 

- making "no k's allowed" framework args are hokey and not persuasive unless you have a traditionally minded judge. Making "we should get to weigh the aff" framework arguments are still kind of pointless. When teams make the argument that we shouldn't evaluate if the plan happens, they're making an argument about the education or framing of the aff being bad. So the right answer is to have "our epistemology good" arguments like "scenario planning good" or even use of the state is good sort of works here. This is much more directly engaging and persuasive than a theory argument. 

- always look for how a new k ties into other critiques. Chances are they are not totally new and are tied into some vein of thought debate has already done to death. Cross x is a good place to parse out links to find a path back to pulling answers from your a2 cap k, a2 whiteness k, etc files.

- lastly, explanation trumps cards. Detailing how the perm works and how it can resolve links to the k requires detail and thought, not evidence from authors. Btw, answering specific links with the perm should be in the 1ar, not the 2ac. It's a little pointless in the 2ac when the block will make new link args.

Thanks this is extremely helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGRawrcat, if you see this, why do you say that a policy team with a K advantage is usually locked into the perm? Just the overall interconnectedness of critical theory literature, with lots of articles existing arguing that racism is gendered and gender is racialized and similar? Or are there reasons not related to the literature base involved too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CanIGetAFavor said:

OGRawrcat, if you see this, why do you say that a policy team with a K advantage is usually locked into the perm? Just the overall interconnectedness of critical theory literature, with lots of articles existing arguing that racism is gendered and gender is racialized and similar? Or are there reasons not related to the literature base involved too?

Mostly strategic purposes. More often than not, a critical plan aff is intended to be in the direction of progressive critical literature with its big distinction being a state based mechanism, so perm solvency arguments are intuitive. Moreover, some offense like impact turns that open up different strategic avenues may have too much tension with the aff (like if they read a cap k and you make some root cause arguments for cap in your 1ac). Beyond that, most strategies outside of the perm involve heavier clash on the impact framing debate. For instance if you impact turn or go for case outweighs, it's easier to delineate clash when you're comparing big stick util impacts to structural impacts. 

A notable exception is pessimism K's. Just got for the impact turn for state action good, progress possible/optimism good, and alt offense. 

An important distinction I should say is that the perm doesnt have to be the a strat, going for offense to the alt is just as viable, BUT that jives well with a perm debate anyway, the perm also giving you wiggle room to mitigate neg links/impacts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1-Framework-ROJ is to weigh plan, quo, and competitive alt-key to fairness and education

2-Perm

a-do both

b-aff and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt

c-k specific perm if there is one

d-perm double bind

3-theory

a-conditional ethics bad

b-vague alts bad

4-Aff-specific DAs

a-alt doesn't solve the aff which causes x bad thing

5-no links (ask the links in cx so you can be sure of how to answer them)

a-negative state action if you're soft left

6-link turns

7-aff solves the k (you have a k advantage so it will work sometimes)

8-Reform works

9-Cede the political DA

 

 

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

×