Skip to content
November 19, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Uber Generic 2AC Critique Frontline

Some of these are decent, some less so. Please be judicious, if you decide to use any of the following. I’ve also included two links to other resources.

Here is my uber generic template for 2ACs against Ks. Obviously, I put it more specific stuff for specific Ks:

Framework interpretation: The negative should provide a competitive policy option or defend the status quo. Prefer-
1. Limits—there are thousands of philosophical writers and kritiks—explodes aff research burden and makes research impossible.
2. Ground—We can’t have the freedom to select a good affirmative if we know it will link to most Kritiks with no problem.
3. Competitive policy option tests the policy implementation of the affirmative—key to education
4. Kritiks have no real world implications—their terminal non-uniqueness and lack of case solvency creates artificial debate.

Next, Condo Bad-
1. Not reciprocal- we cant run multiple plans to find the best example of the resolution.
2. Time and strat skew: They could read 14 CP texts and we’d have to at least cover them all so they don’t develop one in the block.
3. Moving Target bad- Hurts fairness, we don’t know what the issues in the debate are until the 2NR.
4. Most real world- Policy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation.
5. Makes for sloppy debate- negs can just guess and check.
6. Dispo solves our offense. Voter for Fairness/education.
7. Err aff on theory — neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. C/a this to all theory args from the aff.

Next, The alt wishes away ______- utopian fiat is bad:
1. Not real world — By definition, we can never learn about practical policy solutions. While nice to think about, an imaginary world is ultimately useless.
2. Annihilates Ground — We can literally never win a debate when the other team can just imagine away all of life’s problems.
3. Voter for education, ground, and fairness

The K contradicts the rest of the 1NC: (–)
Performative internal contradictions are a voting issue:
1. Kills education – forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers.
2. Strategy skew and moving target – neg can just kick one argument and cross apply our answers to the other flow.
3. Negation theory bad – justifies affirmation theory so that we can just find a harm in the status quo and vote aff on presumption.
4. Short circuits the alternative- no way to solve the alt if things like foreign econ. Engagement and trade deficit is good.
5. Voter for education and ground.

Go to the K proper:
1. ______ is inevitable/incredible non-unique- we engage with Mexico every day, have $500 bn in trade yearly, and have constant diplomatic talks.

2. The alt fails- .

3. There’s no way that rejecting the affirmative can ever resolve the harms of the status quo I extended above.
4. There’s no spillover to the alt- one policy doesn’t impact overall _________, especially internationally.

5. Perm do both

6. Perm do the plan and the alt in all other instances- Double bind- either the alt can’t overcome the affirmative or is so strong that the affirmative is irrelevant to the K.

7. Perm- Juxtapose the plan and the alternative simultaneously- Juxtaposition allows constant criticism and is a prerequisite to the alt. Edelman, George Herbert Mead Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Wisconson-Madison, ’88 (Murray, March 15, “Constructing the Political Spectacle”)
Opposition in expressed “opinion” accordingly make for social stability: they are almost synonymous with it, for they reaffirm and reify what everyone already knows and accepts. To express a prochoice or an anti-abortion position is to affirm that the opposite position is being expressed as well and to accept the opposition as a continuing feature of public discourse. The well established, thoroughly anticipated and therefore ritualistic reaffirmation of the differences institutionalizes both rhetorics minimizing the chance of major shifts and leaving the regime wide discretion; for there will be anticipated support and opposition no matter what forms of action or inaction occur. As long as there is substantial expression of opinion on both sides of an issue, social stability persists and so does regime discretion regardless of the exact numbers or of marginal shifts in members. The persistence of unresolved problems with conflicting meaning is vital. It is not the expression of opposition but of consensus that makes for instability. Where statements need not be defended against counterstatements they are readily changed or inverted. Consensual agreements about the foreign enemy or ally yield readily to acceptance of the erstwhile enemy as ally and the former ally as enemy, but opinions about abortion are likely to persist. Rebellion and revolution do not ferment in societies in which there has been a long history of the ritualized exchange of opposing views of issues accepted as important, but rather where such exchanges have been lacking, so that a consensus on common action to oust the regime is easily built.


You might also check this out from GDI.

This is from this thread.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: