Answer kritik when af

K impacts tend to be one of five things

o Violence/conflict/war
o Environment
o Structural violence
o Value to life
o Moral side constraints (racism patriarchy, some other
ethical/deontological thing, where impact turns are offensive)
How to process information
o How much of the 1AC is not directly responded to? if its an
environment K, do they answer the hegemony advantage
o What in roads to what the NEG is talking about can I generate with my
aff? May not necessarily be to say you outweigh, to say they dont
matter, etc. it may be how they clash and how a certain impact is more
uncontested. Are there external impacts? A good NEG will cover them,
and have an external impact of their own. The AFF should do that as
well or contest whether that neg inroad is relevant in the first place.
Does my aff reduce structural violence, or help the environment,
how ethical is surveillance, etc.

Particular K impacts
-

Root cause
o This doesnt really mean root it probably means a big important
internal link. Its aggressive labeling, root cause means exclusivity,
your ev has to be really good. Leverage the AFFs specific solvency
o Not reverse casual. Doesnt establish remedying the cause would be
sufficient. The aff meets that burden so it is preferable. Some things
are locked in and multifaceted, so having a blanket check like the plan
is better.
If you get rid of neolib, does that get rid of every reason the NSA
has to use PRISM? If no neolib, does racism still exist
o Root cause are like alt causes they basically just ask if you are
necessary and sufficient to solve your affirmative
Value to life
o Make a comparative argument about death and value to life. Life is a
continuum, ad death is at the bottom
o Scrutinize what constitutes how VTL is measured, and use their
descriptions to point out ways the AFF improves those things.
o Dont just let them use this value laden phrase, and let people fill in
the meaning of that. Scrutinize the evidence that supports this claim.

Permutations
-

Having the perm be the first thing out of your mouth is weird
Perm double bind, either alt is strong enough to overcome the plan, or weak
enough cant overcome status quo
o Puts the cart before horse
o When it is the first thing you say about perms it is vacuous
o It presumes a series of arguments you havent made.
You have to challenge the alternative first otherwise this
happens
The alt solves neolib, neolib is bad. The Aff is at least more
neoliberal than the alternative. So why bother voting AFF.
Presumes there is something more important than neolib to
solve.
o The calculus changes when you do stuff like:
Point out how you are the only one who solves an impact that is
important
The alternative doesnt solve neolib
Then the calculus flips to why risk voting NEG if it doesnt
resolve the AFF and if there is a marginal difference between the
amount of neoliberalism after the plan + alternative and the
amount after the alt alone.
You have to make alternative solvency and impact arguments.

Objections to perms
-

They severance
o Question of what links matter/the aff should only be responsible for the
plan. If you win framework, then you cant sever.
They say intrinsic
o Do both should never be intrinsic
If the alt is to vote negative to do X, Y, and Z. If you say perm do the plan and
then a couple phrases from the alt evidence.
They say links are DAs
o Framework clarifies only about action of the plan
o DAs have uniqueness link and impact. That has neither
o Link evidence doesnt assume the alternative, or the plan, which
means it cant assume the permutation it also cant even assume
them at the same time. If the alt has any hope of dealing with the
status quo it needs to be able to productively resolve potentially
problematic contexts
NSA reform could do some good, but could be circumvented and
coopted how much should we care about the alternative if it
cant deal with messy circumstances.
Cooption arguments prove the lack of strength of an alternative
not how scary the plan is.

Putting it all together

-

What is the most important/first thing to do in the 2AC and every subsequent
AFF speech
o Saying the alternative is bad/doesnt solve
o Then you need to establish an external impact they dont deal with
one of our impacts, but we complicate theirs
o Measure the internal links see which side is necessary and sufficient,
and more specific.
o Then deal with framework
o Then resolve the remaining NEG offense generally means two
things
You could go hard on impact arguments about realism or
neoliberalism for instance, the assumptions are wrong, etc.
You could go for the permutation if they said a bunch of stuff
that wasnt about the plan and you have to win framework
anyway. Could also do no link stuff.

Generic K
-

Alt doesnt solve case

Doesnt resolve impacts
Resolve external impact, inroads to theirs
Framework
Choose more in depth on impact or permutation