Intro to Kritiks. With help from J. Heidt, Jason Regnier, Dinger, and postmodern clowns everywhere. 2 Parts. How to Sell the K on the Negative Intro to some basic philosophy. The Importance of Framing.
With help from J. Heidt, Jason Regnier, Dinger, and postmodern clowns everywhere.
The affirmative engages in widespread premeditated murder through its use of hierarchal assumptions that reside within the evil structures of capitalism, that will inevitably lead to the destruction of the worker within the nation state and destroy all autonomy within ourselves and our being, which is clearly the zero point of the holocaust and leads to ongoing violence, widespread genocide, and extinction. Our Zizek evidence postdates any of the Zizek evidence and is the deepest philosophical evaluation possible. This supercedes any of their ontological or epistomological questions.
1) Specific turns the case arguments-root cause, makes things worse, SAY WHY
2) Inevitability, Try or die, extinction is inevitable via a mechanism the aff cannot solve. Example, aff solves asteroids, you try to turn Asteroids with some debris args but also claim the Aff kills the environment and lead to a militarized space race, the aff cannot solve that extinction impact so it helps in case they win some solvency
3) Examples/empirics- Challenger, Contact movie (SETI), NASA, etc. Examples from current events and the obama administration spin will help you contain aff turns and permutations.
4) Diversity is key. Goal should be to force the 1ar to drop a major argument every debate and you can start the 2nr with a list of concessions you can impact
5) You can have D-Rule impacts like “no value to life” or “ontology first” but most judges would rather vote on case turns or K outwieghs the case
6) Advantage Areas-it is a narrow enough topic that this should be fairly easy to prep vs. specific advantage areas- soft power, hege, terrorism, poverty, asteroids, other diseases, patriarchy, genocide, economy, environment..you should have impact args on all of these.
Already mentioned in part:
1) Prepare CX answers and blocks on key questions like if you defend the existence of the state, what the role of the judge is, if you advocate part of the plan
2) Framework arguments to protect the alternative
3) Turns the case or external impacts even if you lose the framework
4) Tie arguments to a role of the ballot/role of the intellectual argument about acknowleging our own lack of power to enact change. This is how you conflate the alternative with the framework
5) Create a world in which your alternative makes sense on a policy level ; ie- enacting a social movement’s agenda
6) More specific alt depending on you k- ie the alternative could be over-identification which does the opposite of the plan, rejection which opens new space for evalutation, etc
7) Use “even if” statements. “Even if they win the alternative doesn’t solve much, we’ve proven the aff doesn’t do anything except distract us from real solutions. Vote negative on PRESUMPTION.
8) Never use random crap that you cannot explain,
9) Always start your alternative text with “Reject the affirmative.” The next sentence should explain what the rejection does/your utopian vision for the alternative/what you’re trying to problematize or rethink. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWASYS start with “Reject the Aff”.
Each asks a basic question about the world.
Signifier- creepy music you hear before the villain attacks in a horror film
Signified- the cultural meaning that the music carries with it to make you scared
A PMJ production