Skip to content
February 19, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

How to answer the one off case critique strategy in the 2ac

This isn’t rocket science.

1) Be prepared
2) Read and think deeply about the literature
3) Impact turn. Specifically, figure out how the K & the K alternative short circuit our ability to solve problems & be human or be ethical or deprive us of a vocabulary for speaking. All of these are terminal impacts or near terminal impacts in the case of a K. Write these out as analytic arguments. (leverage cross ex to set these up if you need to)
4) Answer the case turn
5) Theory
6) If you are going to perm…..you need to challenge the hyper-generalization of the link. (its essentialist).
7) Point out the limitations to the ideology & approach of the K author. Where are their blindspots ideologically or in their worldview.
8) Reps focus bad judge…….or defend your reps or both. Language focus tradesoff with X

Re-read those and let them sink in.

Trade cites & answers with other (quality) debaters.

Also as Aubtin points out above….Wilderson has some serious problems.

In the debate….pay attention to multiple stories. Those multiple stories will still usually go through two arguments a) alternative b] the role of the ballot–but clear that up in cross examination.

Advertisements

One Comment

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Feb 19 2013 4:15 am

    Here is perhaps a better version of the above:
    I realize there is some intuitive appeal here. However, this would apply to link turns too. They can read them for 13 minutes of links too. So…..back to square one.

    Admittedly, some topics do have some interesting link turns around how they interact with the world….if transportation is one of those topics….feel free to try your hand at link turns. Also, sometimes in novice or JV debates you can get away with link turns. However, against good K debaters….this probably won’t fly. If you think its a close call….make a frontline for each…..and think strategically about it. It only takes about 10 minutes to do so. Also, you can use your link turns and just call them link outs…..and use them to turbo-charge your permutation.

    The primary challenge of impact turns is mostly making them stick.
    Also impact turns I think can be more creative for the K….so it makes that option more strategic.
    Plus if you think about the alternative like a counterplan–you need offense.

    Also, one other trick with the impact turn is the way it can TURN the overall argument made by the K. Not its thesis–but the reason its thesis exists. (ie protection of others, more freedom, more justice, etc..)

    This isn’t rocket science.

    1) Be prepared
    2) Read and think deeply about the literature
    3) Impact turn. Specifically, figure out how the K & the K alternative short circuit our ability to solve problems & be human or be ethical or deprive us of a vocabulary for speaking. All of these are terminal impacts or near terminal impacts in the case of a K. Write these out as analytic arguments. (leverage cross ex to set these up if you need to)
    4) Answer the case turn
    5) Theory
    6) If you are going to perm…..you need to challenge the hyper-generalization of the link. (its essentialist–ie all security discourse is bad or all fear is bad or all transportation policy does X).
    7) Point out the limitations to the ideology & approach of the K author. Where are their blindspots ideologically or in their worldview.
    8) Reps focus bad judge…….or defend your reps or both.
    9) Historical double-binds. Forced choice double-binds. Not sure you can do this with these Ks….but these often can work.
    10) Double-bind. Set this up in cross-ex. Ask what your ground is….. Also leverage your case impacts as ways to impact turn the alternative. This isn’t we solve X and they don’t as much as their alternative would cause X to happen….or would advocate for X to happen…..and we think thats bad. Impact turns to the alternative should also be impacted in terms of taking out the K itself.
    11) In the debate….pay attention to multiple stories. Those multiple stories will still usually go through two arguments a) alternative b] the role of the ballot–but clear that up in cross examination.

    Re-read those and let them sink in.

    Trade cites & answers with other (quality) debaters.

    Make sure you and your 1AR are on the same page in terms of the good answers & the bad–and that he/she should still “shadow extend” some of the so-so answers if conceeded or mishandled.

    The specific Ks you talk about:
    Also as Aubtin points out above….Wilderson has some serious problems.

    I haven’t read the abelism K (not sure what its assumptive of) but in my experience there are MULTIPLE ways that the disabled have access to our highways and bi-ways–particularly are city based.
    And every piece of highway helps connect the disabled to more destinations.

    The only way I could see this being an issue is if this is a captialism K in drag…….which would be a real tension to any abelism K. If you make it easier for them to access…they are inevitably going get more into the free market.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: