Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:02 PM
I don't think you should read a generic argument all year round, if that's what you're planning. Each topic has a different strategic landscape and it's unlikely the same K would exploit the best niches of multiple environments. I would start with the topic and then work backwards. This doesn't mean that you would focus only on the topic research first while disregarding potential connections to already known K authors, because that would be too time consuming, but it does mean that you don't try to force a certain argument onto the topic before examining the advantages that others would have.
Generic Ks work well in policy because you get really good at articulating a certain argument and explaining its interaction with the topic and the common assumptions that almost all affirmative cases share. But that's far more difficult to do when the ontological and epistemological assumptions of cases vary widely from team to team, and those cases change every two months. The root literature has utility on all the topics, but if the reason that you're asking about this is that your goal is to stick with a certain set of arguments all year long, I would advise against it.
It's even worth considering developing multiple negative strategies to use against different types of affirmatives, honestly.
That's partly why it's difficult for me to discuss what will be useful for you, as well - all of the topics are very different. I don't think any one set of arguments would work well on all of them, so you'll just have to deal with many different kinds. That said, I think naturalism can be made to work on many different cases, and so can Nietzsche type arguments. But I still doubt that either would work well for all of the topics you'll have to deal with.
There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.