Scribd
Upload
91 views2 pages

AFF STRAT7-7 Chelsea

This document provides strategies for negative teams using kritiks against the affirmative case. It suggests that kritik teams can win without directly engaging with the affirmative arguments by rendering the aff irrelevant. It also outlines how to approach different types of kritiks, how kritiks can win by providing an alternative or ethical obligation, and how the affirmative can defend against kritiks by answering turns and impact calculations. It discusses using kritiks to reexplain why the affirmative is wrong and beating turns cases by showing the kritik root cause or analytical disadvantages of the aff position.

Uploaded by

Chelly
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views2 pages

AFF STRAT7-7 Chelsea

This document provides strategies for negative teams using kritiks against the affirmative case. It suggests that kritik teams can win without directly engaging with the affirmative arguments by rendering the aff irrelevant. It also outlines how to approach different types of kritiks, how kritiks can win by providing an alternative or ethical obligation, and how the affirmative can defend against kritiks by answering turns and impact calculations. It discusses using kritiks to reexplain why the affirmative is wrong and beating turns cases by showing the kritik root cause or analytical disadvantages of the aff position.

Uploaded by

Chelly
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AFF STRATEGY

Nate Cohn

• AT: K
o K teams can win while not contesting the case
o K teams can only win if they render the aff irrelevant
 Aff wins if aff is still relevant
o Can approach aff from numerous philosophical points
 Explodes literature – difficult for aff to target
o How to think about kritiks
 Consider them in terms of different approaches
 K has to have a link
 Think of Ks as the elements of the case that it kritiks
 Undermine utility of ethics of aff plan
 Criticize ability to predict the future, ideology, trying to change the world, etc.
 Kritiks of fiat – normativity , k of power structures – Foucault, Agamben , k of cap
 Reps K – contend something aff is engaged in
 Structures plan relies on
o How Ks win
 Alternative – solves/turns case, etc
 Prima facie issue, ethical obligation – value to life
 Role of ballot framework – weigh K first, don’t look at case
• X comes first arguments
o How aff wins
 Defense of K thesis
 Answers to alt
 Answers to turns-case
 Impact calc – consequentalism good, extinction o/w
 Topic-specific kritiks become more relevant
o How to beat turns case
 2 reasons k turns case
• Root cause
• Analytical DAs – K shows aff is not true – threats based off x school of thought
o Neg reexplains the affirmative using K ideology, shows how aff is wrong
 Explain their reexplanation, show how aff solves
 Know the K literature/language
 Something else comes first
o The security dilemma
 Each state fight for their own interests
 Key realist assumption is that states are unitary and rational actors defined by their military
capabilities
o ontology – study of being, epistemology – study of how we gain knowledge
o Discourse – representations come first
 Representations shape policy making

o Wendt – horrible book?
o Assumptions are presumably accurate – alt fails
o Bring back case, use it against the K
o
o
•
•

You might also like