9/27-10/4: LD & PF Tournament Results and Answering Kritiks
Lincoln Douglas Debate
Tournament Results
This weekend, LD debaters competed at two bid tournaments: the Jack Howe Memorial Tournament and the Yale Invitational. Here are some notable results:
Congratulations to Orange County School of the Arts’ Iva Liu for championing the 2023 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament. In finals, Iva defeated Immaculate Heart’s Ava Wegmann-Gatarz on a 3-0 decision (Krauss, Meza, Ramireddy). Additional congratulations to Iva for being the top speaker.
Full pairings and results can be found here.
Congratulations to American Heritage Broward’s Spencer Swickle for championing the 2023 Yale Invitational. In finals, Spencer defeated San Mateo’s Yesh Rao on a 2-1 decision (Victor, Agho-Otoghile, Rereddy*). Additional congratulations to Spencer for being the top speaker.
Full pairings and results can be found here.
Public Forum Debate
Tournament Results
This weekend, PF debaters competed at two bid tournaments: the Jack Howe Memorial Tournament and the Yale Invitational. Here are some notable results:
Congratulations to Ashna Gandhi & Arianna Desai and Ivan Shah & Nethra Dhamodaran from Dougherty Valley for co-championing the 2023 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament. Additional congratulations to Leland’s Jeannine Yu for being the top speaker.
Full pairings and results can be found here.
Congratulations to Rikhil Ranjit & Gene Yoon from Alliance for championing the 2023 Yale Invitational. In finals, they defeated Felicity Wong & HT Xue from Cicero Project on a 4-1 decision (Verma*, Leonhardt, Halleman, Burkeen, Altman). Additional congratulations to Blake’s Davin Khan for being the top speaker.
Full pairings and results can be found here.
Best of luck to everyone competing next weekend! Stay tuned for future tournament results.
Back to Basics: Answering the Kritik
by Evan Alexis
The Basics
To fix terminology, I’ll be working with the following definition of the kritik (K). It has 4 main parts, being framework, one or more links, an impact, and an alternative.
Framework (FW) defines the win conditions in a round, or the bar the AFF has to meet. The default in policy debates is plan focus, which simply asks the AFF to demonstrate that the plan is a good idea. In K debates, the NEG will contest this–generally through a role of the ballot (ROTB) claim. These arguments posit that the judge should do more than just evaluate the direct consequences of the plan. This might include evaluating the consequences of representations as well, or even go so far as to exclude weighing the plan altogether.
Links criticize parts of the 1AC, be they specific policy actions or representational choices. Generally, links should have impacts to them in order for the judge to properly weigh them.
Impacts are generally the consequences of the system the K is based around, ranging from slower impacts like structural violence to extinction-level threats (say, climate change).
Alternatives (alts) provide solutions to impacts, generally attempting to resolve the impacts of the AFF case as well. Since most K links are descriptive of the status quo, alternatives provide uniqueness by resolving that status quo.
Pre-Round – Identifying the K
Before you start preparing your 1AR to the K, you should first identify its flavor. I’ll separate Ks into two rough categories, structural and representational.
Structural Ks identify overarching systems (“theories of power”) that explain how the world works, and argue that the aff is complicit with one of these. Examples include Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, and Antiblackness. Your primary focus should be focused on the link and alt, since a hallmark of these structures is how pervasive and entrenched they are.
Representational (reps) Ks are more focused on the specific discursive choices of the 1AC and their consequences, such as criticizing the securitization of China or terrorism. Your main focus in these debates should be framework, as defining a cohesive model for evaluating links based on representations can be very difficult.
In Round – The Details
A helpful, if perhaps over the top, mnemonic for categorizing the specific arguments that could go into a 1AR vs. the K is FCPOSTALI (you may have heard shorter versions of this acronym).
(F)ramework. Your primary goal in K debates should be to get to weigh the AFF. If the NEG succeeds in excluding the consequences of the plan, you lose your main source of offense and are forced to win an uphill battle on the link level. Appeals to fairness and clash go a long way here.
A secondary goal is leverage framework to win the whole debate. Depending on your 1AR interpretation, you can shut down NEG links (“only evaluate links to the consequences of the plan” if neg links are entirely reps-based) or alternative (“weigh the plan vs. the status quo or a competitive policy option” against non-governmental action). This can be tricky, since many judges believe that the NEG should get some level of non-plan-based links or alternative.
Another important role of framework for the NEG is to establish competition for the alternative. If the judge isn’t just weighing the specific consequences of the plan, the bar for what a legitimate opportunity cost is lowered. Make a clear stand on why plan-based competition is good (predictable, stable, etc.).
(C)ase outweighs. This argument is simple, but highly effective. In all likelihood, the 1AC will be accessing an extinction-level impact—so use it! While structural issues are certainly terrible, literally everyone dying is probably worse. You can also leverage the case to complicate alternative solvency (case turns the alt): for example, it might be harder to galvanize support for communism in the midst of an economic crisis.
(P)ermutation. Your best piece of link defense. Permutation do both (or some variation; perm do each, perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances vs. rejection, etc.) goes a long way towards resolving most links. A common framing trick for these arguments (not actually permutation!) is the “perm double bind”: either the alt overcomes the links to the AFF, or it doesn’t solve their offense. It doesn’t really matter how much “more capitalism” you do if the alt comes along and overthrows the entire system; on the other hand, if increasing the legitimacy of capitalism just a bit was enough to stop the revolution, it probably wasn’t going to work out in the first place. You should identify a net benefit to the permutation, usually the case (e.g. solving extinction), a link turn, or offense against the alt that the plan solves (e.g. transition wars). Perm do the alt is helpful when the NEG might capture your offense (e.g. the alt is a “radical” right to housing, which is probably a way the plan could be done).
This argument is less useful in debates vs. reps Ks, since the alternative in those debates is usually along the lines of just rejecting the 1AC since their offense is primarily pre-fiat. To win one, you’ll likely have to justify severing your representations through an appeal to framework or a performative contradiction by your opponent.
(O)ffense. Any source of, well, offense against the K. This can range from impact turns (best against Cap) to DAs to the alt (transition wars), to link turns. This is on here mostly for the mnemonic, as most of these arguments fall under other more specific areas.
(S)olvency. Does the alternative solve the aff? Probably not. Most alts involve some level of rejecting state action, which is not known to result in policy. Alts that claim to do everything (magical Communist Christmasland) probably lose to the perm.
(T)heory. Best used to discourage cheaty alternatives. Avoid interpretations without a clear definition, such as “vague alts” or “utopian fiat” bad in favor of more precise arguments: “must not fiat non-governmental action” or “plan-inclusive kritiks (PIKs) bad”. The latter is especially necessary, deterring 2NR pivots that make it almost impossible to win offense (for example, an alt to the security K that claims to “reject threat construction” might claim in the 2NR to endorse the plan minus the 1AC’s problematic representations—stealing the whole AFF).
(A)lt Solvency. Does the alternative solve their links/impacts? Sometimes, but usually more the former than the latter. As previously noted, overarching structures like capitalism and colonialism are so insidious due in part to their persistent nature. A substantial move towards decolonization, for example, raises a slew of questions: where do settlers currently on indigenous land go; who decides who is indigenous; what happens to the land of tribes who no longer exist?
(L)ink. You should do your best to contest the link as the AFF. The most common approach is link defense, which usually consists of taking a more generic link (rights bad, for example) and explaining why that doesn’t necessarily apply to the aff (a right to housing is different from other rights like private property because it doesn’t serve the interests of capital). You can also indict the thesis of their links (reps don’t shape reality). Link turns can be very powerful, serving as offense you can win on even if the NEG wins framework. These are best accompanied with DAs to the alt, providing a very powerful justification for the perm. Importantly, make sure you don’t double turn yourself with a link and impact turn!
(I)mpact. Contesting the impact is important! Common forms of defense include capitalism sustainable/doesn’t cause extinction, or against ontology-based Ks progress is possible. These help facilitate a 2AR on the perm or case outweighs. There are also a variety of impact turns available. Most obvious is probably flavors of cap good, but you can also deploy leverage less specific turns in strategic ways. For example, US hegemony good is pretty responsive to the cap K, settler colonialism (what happens to nuclear deterrence after decolonization?), and some international relations-based Ks. Of course, it should go without saying that you should not impact turn obviously bad forms of oppression.
Evan Alexis is an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis. He competed in policy debate in high school and college, reaching finals of NSDA. Evan has coached multiple teams to out-rounds at the Tournament of Champions and has served as an instructor at VBI the last two years.