K lecture

Broadly the K is meant to challenge the assumptions of the affirmative or its relationship to the
resolution
 Different types of K’s
Dirty word K’s

You said a bad word- you should be punished for it

Assumptions/ Reps K

Traditionally applied to internal link and impact scenarios

When the aff has represented sometone or something in a particilary mean way

Structural K’s

Attacks the institution the aff participates in

Focuses more on S mechanisms and advantages and indicts the epistemology that supports them

None of these are exclusive--- They should all interact: helps the link debate
 Parts of the K
No UQ- For the negative UQ shows what the negative cares about in the squo. The K serves to address
the entire world in a more Holistic way. It can’t be confined in the way UQ tries to confine it

Link- How the aff links—links have UQ tho!

Generic Links- card presented in 1nc shell. Links to everything typically. EX- links to USFG

Mechanism Link- Directly indicts the plan. Attacks IPR, copyrights, patents, trademarks. They are casually
related to the implementation of the plan

Rhetorical links- Addresses the Dirty word K’s (THESE ARE NOT NIT PICKY ARGUMENTS)

- Pairs easily with FW in 2NC. You said something bad- lose

Link of omission- Not a link. Just because they didn’t explicitly say something doesn’t mean they are that

Descriptive links- Describes the squo--- these are actually framing arguments

Each type of link should naturally link to the impact

Impact- The bad thing

Alt- Doesn’t always need to solve for the case. (SOME DO)

- Our offense outweighs, we turn your links and answer them

- They can solve the internal links to the aff

Rejection- Don’t vote aff

- Usually follows rhetorical links

Epistiomology Alt- Introduce it into the round

- “The alt is to introduce native epistemology into the debate space!”

Positive action/ Pragmatic Solution

- Generally, involves state action

- Believes institutions can be used for change

Burn it all down!!

- All institutions are bad: take them all down

Floating Piks

- “All you aff’s belong to me now”

- Does the K Solve the aff--- bad question for cross

Newer components-----

Fw- Is not needed to win a mech link- but is with rhetoric and dirty word
Formatted the same

- FW and framing are not the same. They have different roles when the judge is evaluating the
flow and the debate

Competition- Perms
Different types of links
Different alts
 2nc/1nr/2nr Tips
1. 2nc takes the K and the 1nr takes case
2. 2nc takes FW, link debate, perm and 2ac cards and 1nr takes the alt and some 2ac (and
hopefully someone answers case)—why is this better

Use the 1nr to supplement the case debate and supplement the block
 Answering the K
Consider the taxonomy of the K

All questions challenge assumptions surrounding power, authority and legitimacy

Weakest point of the K- Alt

- Most people don’t know how to articulate it

Strong- Link/Impact

Major Point of clash: FW

- Challenge how the K should operate

Strategize the best case neg

Mechanism style links- put it up next to the aff

- These can link turn the aff too--- by doing the aff you make your own offence more likely
o Takes generic analysis and applies it to the aff scenario

MISSED STUFF HERE

What to do when the K is introduced (Pre 2ac)

1. Flow
2. Identify the main components
3. Understand their proposed solution
4. Organize your own offensive based evidence/ blocks
5. Watch your own speeches and your own arguments

Bless up

- Relax--- you got this

- remember to project confident, be positive about your upside and utilize your productivity

Identify

- Figure out what their arguments are

o What are the warrants
 - Read the evidence

Do they solve a problem?

What is the main harm or problem that the aff has (that the neg claims)?

Identify the offense

Engage

- Discuss your partner

- Why the neg doesn’t solve the good the things and causes the and things
- Figure out what your offense is going to be
1. Contextually read the evidence (your evidence doesn’t say X, it says Y)
2. Compare evidence, put it side by side
3. Direct clash
4. Utilize gains in CX
5. Framing the debate, why does winning this matter on the flow

Adapt

- Adapt your arguments/blcoks/ answers as the debate evolves

- Pay attention to the blovk pivots, Theory/ competition
o Stay on top of the spin

What the 2ac should have

- Offense and defense

- Mixture of cards and analytics: operationalize your arguments
- Applied argument
- Clear labels and organization

Teach judges their decision and their RFD

FW

1. C/I
2. Standards
3. Voters

Aff answers

- You need to have a mechanism link- the alt needs to address this and solve
- (A lot of these C/I’s also meet the K)
- Neg can say- We DO link to the plan. Concede FW- go for the mech link in the 2nr

Neg strats

1- FW and repps link

2- Case turn/ mech link and ! debate
“Whats the value of the debate?”
 Perms
PDB- means things happen together--- make sure to ask what they mean with this

- BUT if the alt is reject the aff--- you cant really do both…

Perm double bind- The aff plan is stronger than the alt and solves for all impacts presented and the alt is
weaker

Perm do one then another- This is intrinsic

Perm do aff and some/ all parts of the alt-

Perm do the alt- severance

Perm- The aff hurts the state and in the world of the alt that is a good thing

- Neg response: Dig to the second level—

Offense

AT their authors

AT components of their theoretical explanation

Turns

- Impact and link turn

Answering K impacts

- Connects to FW
- You will almost always have game on time frame
- Be ready to defend your assumptions of your impact calc

Solvency Deficits

- Time frame
- Efficiency
- Work?

Theory

- What can you fiat

- Complicate the legitimacy scope of their alternative
- Challenge the terms under which arguemtns can be kicked

THESE ARE THEORY ARGUMENTS AND SHOULD BE USED TO CLARIFY/ COMPLICATE THE K

Alt Disadds

(These don’t need to be labeled DA’s for this—This can merely be an inditement)
/\ I am allowed to make arguments… right?

- They don’t do the case. They don’t do this and that is bad--- THIS IS A DA
- YOU NEED DA’S TO THE ALT
- Relevant label for the DA
o Clear link and internal links
 THINK THESE OUT. How does the scenario escalate. If the alt removes the US- a
lot of the time the DA link is gone
o Clear impacts

Link

Demand that the link be UQ

- Just because racism exists doesn’t mean you get to be racist to

Link defense arguments- flow to the perm debate--- how?

Force the neg to resolve their own links

After 2ac

- Flow the block, keep your files up and ready for 1ar card pulls
- Get your shopping list together
o Prepare for if the 2nr wants to go for everything

Aff- just keep flowing!!!!

After 2nr- check your flow. What did they go for! (That’s their strategy) Prepare overview and impact
calculus. Identify what your best offensive argument amd the evidence attached to that. What is their
vice versa--- how do we beat that?

- Identify what you need to win

2ar

What doors did the 2nr leave open

Frame the arguments—check previous notes

PERM

Offense

- Case
- Other da’s
- L/T
- !/T
Solvency Deficit

SIGN POST- labeling. Explain where you are on the flow. Explain what is going on!

Aff- it can be nice to just go for one thing in the 2nr and 2ar. The 2ar’s only job

2nr- SHOULD HAVE CASE. Put it at the top. The aff can only articulate offense through their own
evidence and case

No more than a 1:30

If the alt solves case- don’t extend case

Extending Dirty word K’s—depends

+ ballot cant resolve personal intra-personal issues

1. I don’t want your applology, I want the ballot

2. You want the ballot- you need to act differently
- Slurs—GO FOR IT
- Evidence words: Sorta bad, they read the author
- Words I don’t like: mmmm, shiny objects

When can you kick the alt

- When your cooking on the L/T’s case

- If it doesn’t make sense to you (Lol)
- Really good perms
- When it has a lot of solvency deficits
 Extra K talking stuff--- Put this into lecture
later
How alts solve internal links

- For it to be a pik The Alt must result in the mandate of the plan
- For it to solve without it being a pik it cant result in the mandate of the aff plan
o The result of the alt will solve I/L
o For this to create offense you want to address the Link debate—How you get there

Intrinsic perms bad

- Adding infinite room to add to perms is abusive—make the perm always better

Plan+

- The alt/cp is doing the aff plus more

o This means you concede the aff is good
o Just because you have better ideas that include our pan doesn’t mean we are not a bad
idea
o Just because your ideas are bigger than the rez doesn’t mean we are bad

This is bad because they need to be plan-

- This is to indict the aff and prove they are bad

Offense = what they do is bad

The link Debate on the K—is just a DA debate (Learn that everything is a DA)

CX is to dry and get solvency deficits

FW V. Framing

1. Purpose of debate
2. Aff/Neg/Judge role
3. Model of debate
 1. Impacts
2. Priorities
3. Sequences—What should the judge resolve first

What to do if you have time----

1. Always add texture to impacts

2. Always do evidence comparison
3. Have I answered all warrants?
4. Framing—give the judge language of how to weigh the debate
5. Use the evidence you have already read. Make sure it is good evidence- examples and scenarios
and DESCRIBE

Answering case

1. What’s their evidence say?

2. Is it better to say they don’t reach their argument?
3. Defense and offense

TVA (Thinks about future affirmative debating)—appreciated on FW. Needed for T. If you cant read a
TVA for an aff—that means they are so far out of the res

Just because I don’t have a 100% solving tva doesn’t mean the aff is topical or that you win: THIS IS
ARGUING ABOUT A DEBATE YOU COULD HAVE HAD. If neg wins that you don’t need to be untopical to
solve a lot of the affs offense, then they win

Ground should be reciprocal- not given

SSD (What to take what you just talked about, and run it on neg)- Run it on the neg, not aff. This
contradicts a lot of policy bros FW. (FW tries to exclude K’s). How SSD SHOULD go- read it on the
negative so that you can Kritik us on the negative and we can have more clash. “Why the kritikal
literature should be utilized on the neg”

“If we cant read anything on your case, we cant neg the case, vote neg on presumption”—stupid
argument. Maybe you are a bad researcher?

- Why would you give yourself less time to engage the other team: MAKES NO SENSE

Don’t run away from your aff. You need to defend it. Make sure it takes solid action.
If the aff doesn’t defend a fiated action- run presumption

C/T the K aff

- Black people shouldn’t have exclusive rights to all of their own