Answering Critiques (aka Kritiks) 101:

People were asking how to answer Ks. This is a pretty comprehensive answer to that question.
This was written on the topic, Resolved: The United States ought to extend the same
constitutional due process protections to non-citizens accused of terrorism it grants to citizens.
1. Don't lose your cool. Remember what we talked about in terms of answering confusing
positions: before getting into the tactics and strategy, before going over specific
arguments, you FIRST have to have the right mindset. If you don't, it doesn't matter
what arguments we go over you won't have the right mindset to implement the
strategy.

So, don't get frazzled by the word kritik. A kritik is an argument just like any other.
Be skeptical. Think logically. Keep flowing.

The problem is that a lot of debaters run Ks to throw others off. And often this works
for two reasons: A) Ks often utilize critical, postmodern philosophy (Derria, Zizek,
Levinas, etc) that can be VERY dense and confusing. The ontological apparatus of
thought reduces the signification of time and being... lol wut?!?! B) Ks often change the
course and framework of the debate. No longer is the debate a discussion of the
resolution and due process, but the 'discourse,' 'mindset,' 'assumptions,' 'methodology,'
'epistemology' and 'ontology' of the debate; Ks change the question of the debate: No
longer is it Is the resolution true?, but, Is the wording the aff uses problematic?
This can throw debaters off... I was prepared to debate if extending constitutional due
process is good, not if the word 'the' is good! Thus, in this sense, this forces more
stock, right debaters (right debaters = stock, traditional debaters; K debaters = more
left) into unfamiliar territory. A good stock, right debater will be prepared on the topic,
having done lots of research and prep. But, Ks are often only tangentially related to the
resolution; again, they change the question from Is affirming good or bad? to super
vacuous questions like What does it mean to affirm a statement?, How do we approach
the Other?, What is death? These questions can make your whole case irrelevant and
all the prep you did irrelevant.

So, again, don't lose your cool. The three Cs: Cool, Calm, Collective. You're running a
K?... no problem! And here's the thing: if your opponent is running a K just to be
convoluted and confusing, to just throw you off, chances are it won't be good; it won't
be well warranted; and your judge will be just as confused as you are. So don't give up.
Be skeptical of each card and supposed warrant.

2. Just like with answering confusing positions, one of the most important speeches when
answering a K is cross-examination. When you encounter a K, the key is to have a
probing, effective CX. What does that even mean?!?! How do we 'transverse the
fantasy'?!?! Why is this not inevitable?!?! What do YOU do to solve the impact of
___?!?!

Especially if the K is confusing. (Although, to clarify, not ALL kritiks are confusing and
dense. Some kritiks are really simple: for example, Rand/objectivism kritiks are pretty
common. That Mueller K I wrote was pretty simple, although some threat exaggerations
K/securitization Ks can get pretty hairy.) If the K is confusing, it's imperative that you
try to clarify as much as you can. This includes not only confusing words: What does
___ mean by 'dialectics'?, but these are also great questions: What is the role of the
judge/ballot? What is the terminal impact of the K?, What does ___ really mean?,
What is the alternative?, What is the warrant in this card?

Like always, hold them to the arguments at the level of their explanation. If the K is
confusing, chances are your opponent is going to come up with NEW answers and NEW
warrants during CX. That's interesting... Can you read me that from your case? Where
in the evidence does it even say that?

Also, use CX to be perceptually dominant. Your opponent is the one trying to muddle the
round. Your opponent is the one being unnecessarily complicated. You're the one who is
being reasonable and trying to debate the resolution. CX is a great time to contrast
yourself with your opponent. Be funny. When your opponent says something crazy during
CX like The ontological impossibility of linguistic structures..., take a short pause, look

at the judge with a slight smile (don't be arrogant about it though), and keep going.

Worst case scenario, if you're not understanding anything your opponent is saying, start
asking questions like, What is the general thesis of the position?, Why should the
judge vote for you?, What is it that I do that is so bad? But, try to get into the
specific warrants and cards, because questions like these will allow your opponent to just
extend their speech time.

3. The best way to get better at answering kritiks is to run them yourself. It's that
simple. You'll never learn the intricacies and the common flaws of a position/kritik
unless you run it yourself and read the literature. The same goes for theory: if
you want to get good at answering it, try running it. Play around. You'll start to
learn the weaknesses, and then you'll know what to exploit when you encounter
someone running a K or theory.

4. Which brings me to this: READ, READ, READ!!!!! The more you familiarize yourself
with the literature, the better position you'll be in. You won't be scared when
your opponent throws around words like ontology, biopower, Panopticon,
existentialism, rhizomatic, etc because you'll have already read about them. If
you've read DnG (Deleuze and Guattari), you'll know what to do when you
encounter a DnG kritik. If you've read Lacan, you'll know what to do when you
encounter a psychoanalysis kritik. If you read Marx, you'll know what to do when
you encounter a Cap K. How much of Baudrillard have you read so far? How much
Giroux? You're going to wish you had when your encounter a Baudrillard or Giroux
K! Successful debaters don't just magically come up with arguments; they just
read a lot and do research. This is the key to argument generation: the more you
read, the more arguments you'll know. Also, it means you'll never be taken off
guard. Oh... you're reading Rutherford? I've read that article. I know she goes
on to say that there are ways of reforming due process... oh... I can argue that
this is just an implementation problem! Make sense? When you read, you know
your opponent's arguments, you won't be taken off guard, and you'll even know
what to say in response. So again, READ, READ, READ! Don't just be reading topic

specific articles; you need to be reading philosophy i.e., books. Go the library or
order some books from Amazon. Try to read a new philosophy book every two
weeks. You should never stop reading new philosophers. I've been doing debate
for quite a while now, and I'm still reading new philosophers e.g. I'm reading Paul
Virilio right now (and Virilio Kritiks are becoming more and more common in
debate).
Alright... let's get into specific arguments and strategies:

5. Perm the alternative (aka 'alt'). Think of the alt just like a counterplan indeed,
that's basically what it is. In the same way you perm a counterplan, perm the alt.
This is one of the best things you can do in answering a K. The alt needs to be
competitive, and usually one generates competition through the links. We can't
do both the alt and the AFF, because the links prove that the AFF is doing
exactly what I'm saying is bad. If the alt is Don't use racist language, you can't
really say Perm: Extend the same constitutional due process AND don't use
racist language if you already used racist language. If you've already used racist
language i.e. if the neg wins the link it's harder to access the perm.

But, there are some ways around this (this is where things start to get more advanced):
A) Put the NEG in a double-bind. Either 1. The perm solves or 2. The perm doesn't solve,
but that means the alt probably doesn't solve either. This works even better if you
establish that the link to your position is marginal that is, if you can mitigate the link.
Yeah, I used racist language, but it was only kind of racist and I only said it once. Or,
Yeah, I rely on the state, but it's not as though my position justifies the power of the
state; I only rely a little on the state. Make sense? If you can mitigate the size of the
link, this not only mitigates the size of the impact (remember, the size of the link
determines the size of the impact), but this makes this tricky little double-bind. Say to
the judge, Look, maybe I do link a little to the K, but the alt should be good enough to
overcome that marginal, residual link. Then, concede the alt evidence, say it's really
good, and then say to the judge This proves the alt will overcome the link, which proves
the perm solves. We can do BOTH the AFF and alt and overcome the link. This is similar

to using your opponent's uniqueness evidence in a Disad to overwhelm their link evidence
(uniqueness overwhelms/swamps the link). If the NEG responds by saying that the alt
can't overcome the link(s), then say that that proves the alt isn't good, that it's too
fragile to look to. If the alt can't overcome this specific link, what makes the NEG
think that it will ever work in the real word? If the alt can't overcome my link to
capitalism, then how will it ever solve for the million other links to capitalism?!?! Again,
this puts them in a double-bind: concede the perm or concede there's no solvency to the
alt. The only way to counter this is for the NEG to argue that the link isn't marginal,
that the link is sooo substantial that it makes the perm impossible. This is why if you do
this strat, you need to mitigate the link. Make the link as small as possible (as close to a
terminal no link takeout), so that the perm seems more feasible. If the NEG can make
the link seem really large, then the perm won't seem as feasible.

B) Sever out of the links by saying they're not integral to your advocacy. This means it's
not a severance perm since you're only required to defend the planks of your advocacy
throughout the debate. For instance, say your contention two says something offensive
(hopefully it doesn't). In the 1AR just say, Kick the offensive language in contention
two. Even though I already said it, that doesn't prove affirming is bad, since it has
nothing to do with my advocacy or the truth value of the resolution. Thus, perm the alt:
Affirm the resolution AND don't use racist language. If you can sever out of the
language, assumptions, etc that is bad according to the K, and say that all matters are
the advocacies, then you can concede the alt and perm it. Kick/apologize for whatever
the NEG kritiks, but we should still affirm the resolution (and do the alt). BUT, this
obviously doesn't work if the kritik links to directly to the resolution or your advocacy
statement. If you say My advocacy/Plan is to extend the same constitutional due
process to those dirty, stinking immigrants, well, you link pretty hard to a
racism/xenophobia K, and it's harder to sever out of the wording of the advocacy
statement without biting into severance theory. (Although, it's still possible. Just say
that you're defending the same action, so you'll concede the wording wasn't the best,
but you're still defending the same advocacy just worded differently. Think of how
Mitt Romney responded to the infamous 47% video: he said that he defended what he
said in the video; he just worded it a little ineloquently. Say the same thing: I apologize:
I shouldn't have called them 'dirty, stinking immigrants.' Perm the alt: don't use racist
language, but that doesn't deny we shouldn't extend due process. We should do both.)

C) Say the alt (or more specifically, the text of the alt) is vague. If the alt is really
vague, then it's harder to explain how it's competitive. My alternative to capitalism is
to take an existential leap of faith... lol wut?!?! Why can't we take an existential leap
of faith AND extend the same constitutional due process to non-citizens? Say that the
NEG has the burden of proof to show that the alt is competitive, and if the alt is vague,
then the judge should give you credence on the legitimacy of the perm. And here's the
thing: most alternatives to kritiks are really, really vague. More on that in a little bit.

D) Non-unique the links (I'll talk more about this in a little bit as well). Say that the
links to the K are happening in the status quo for instance, if the neg runs a Cap
K, say that the K is non-unique because the US is capitalist in the squo as well. Yes
the NEG isn't defending the status quo when they run a K; they're defending
the alt. However, if the alt is compatible with the status quo and it HAS to be to
solve then the non-uniques on the links show that the perm solves. Again, this
puts the NEG in a double-bind: Either the perm solves or the alt doesn't. What do
I mean by the alt is compatible with the status quo? I mean that the alt happens
from the squo. If the squo is X, the AFF is Y, and the alt is Z, both Y and Z
depart from/change X. If the impacts to the kritik also happen in X (and of
course Y), but Z attempts to solve/depart from X, then that means the Z should
be good enough to overcome X. If that's the case, then the perm (X and Y)
should also be good enough to overcome the link to Y. Let me give an example:
If I say we should go to McDonalds, you run a K of capitalism and the alt is 'Global
Communism.' I say in response Non-unique: The US is capitalist in the status quo.
This means one of two things: Either A) global communism is a good enough alt to
overcome the status quo (e.g. capitalism), which means going to McDonalds is not a
substantial enough link to prevent the perm; or B) global communism can't
overcome the status quo (e.g. capitalism), which means it doesn't matter if I link
to capitalism, because the alt can't overcome status quo capitalism. In other
words, the alt isn't good enough to overcome the non-unique links to the
status quo, or it is, in which case it should also overcome the link to the aff.

6. Apologize. This argument is meh, but it can be made fast (in under a few seconds).

It also doesn't work against every K, but it does have some force against
discourse and other pre-fiat kritiks. Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't know saying that
was bad, but now that I do, I vow to never say it again! If the whole point of K is
to try to change people's minds or mindsets or whatever (micro-politics), then
argue that the NEG has already done that, you've apologized, vowed to change,
and now there's no reason to vote for the K. The NEG will probably argue that it's
a cop-out, you're not sincere, and only the ballot is key to signaling a
message/deterrent. But, the one thing that's strategic about this argument is
that you can basically concede the entire K (links, impacts, alts), and just sever
the internal link to the ballot. Basically, everything my opponent has said is true,
which is why I apologized, perm the alt, but you should still vote AFF for the
reasons given in the AC. There's no reason you must vote me down to access the
micro-political impacts of the K. You might make this argument quickly and see if
it goes dropped. Also, combine this with a perm on the alt.

7. As I've already talked about a little, just sever out of whatever was kritiked. This
is basically just like an apology. Now, to be honest, this is kind of stupid. The idea
that you can just say whatever you want without any repercussions is a little
absurd. I think in order for this argument to work you need to draw a distinction
between your advocacy and the way you present that advocacy. Say that you are
only bound to defending your advocacy (and your advocacy might just be the text
of the resolution). So, even if you say something offensive, even if the
'methodology' or mindset of the AFF is bad, that doesn't deny the truth-value of
the resolution or that the advocacy is still a good idea. Essentially you're just
severing out of the links to the K. Here's an analogy you should give when making
this argument: suppose the NEG reads an Ethics K, which criticizes the ethical
framework you defend. (For instance, you read a consequentalism framework, the
NEG argues that consequentialism is racist and sexist.) But, can't you kick your
framework anyways? Youre not bound to defend your standard, which is why you
can kick it and accept your opponent's standard. So, if the NEG reads a K of your
standard, why can't you kick it in that situation as well?

8. Make the argument that your opponent, by running the K, commits the Nirvana

fallacy. It should not be your burden to defend perfection. That's not only unfair,
but bad for policymaking and values because if we had to achieve perfection, we
would never get anything done. There are serious problems in the world that need
to be solved, and we shouldn't get hung up on minor details and problems the NEG
criticizes. Obviously this argument depends on the particular kritik. Suppose for
example the NEG reads a Foucault kritik that talks about the way power operates,
normalizes people, etc (and of course there are different types of power). You
should say,
1. Non-unique: Power is going to always exist, whether you affirm or negate. As long as
societies and states exist, power is an inevitability.
2. Nirvana fallacy: They expect the AFF to solve for an imperfection inherent to the
world. That's not only unfair but paralyzes action. This prevents us from solving anything
and so outweighs.
3. The AFF outweighs: Let's be a little pragmatic. Power is going to always exist, but we
have the opportunity to solve ___ impact I identify in the AC. That is an impact that
CAN be solved and so should be prioritized.

I've made three pretty tasty and short arguments (although I would probably need to
elaborate on each more), and they all sort of tie into one another. They all make each
stronger.

Let me give another example: if you advocate military action to solve the equivalent of
crimes against humanity in Syria, and the NEG reads a militarism kritik, you should say,
Look maybe relying on the military is not the best. But, there are crimes against
humanity going on and something has to be done. A military response isn't perfect, but
that's an unfair expectation, and they don't give a better alternative. They do give an
alternative, but it doesn't tell us specifically what to do about Syria.

9. Non-unique. This is one of the best response to a kritik. There are two types
of non-uniques when it comes to Ks. 1. You can non-unique the impact. The impact
is inevitable, exists on both sides, etc. 2. You can non-unique the links. The links

are inevitable, exists on both sides, etc. BUT, there are two types of non-uniqued
links. A) You can non-unique the links relative to the status quo. I talked about
that when it comes to perms. B) You can also, and should, non-unique the links
relative to the alternative. When you do this, basically what you're just saying is
that the alternative doesn't solve. Even in the world of the alt, X link and/or Y
impact will still happen.

Why is this a great argument against Ks. Two reasons: First, trust me, most Ks are just
non-unique. Biopower, statism, dehumanization, securitization: these things will probably
always exist, even in the world of the alt, and even if is possible to change them, it will
probably take forever (for instance, how long would it take to change people's racist
mindsets?) - in which case you can outweigh the K on timeframe. And, because the links
and/or impacts of the K will probably be inevitable, you can outweigh them on
probability. B) Most alts are pretty bad. They're usually really vague and lack an
explanation on how they actually solve. Press the NEG on this. Where in the alternative
do you read solvency evidence? I know you read evidence that explains what the
alternative is, but what evidence do you read that says the alt solves? Press the NEG on
the alternative causality: yeah, I link to the K, but what do YOU do about it?

Non-uniques by themselves aren't very good (because they're defensive), but they're
better if you can combine them with other arguments: like a perm or weighing
arguments.

10. The alt doesn't solve. It depends on the alternative, but if you win this argument
it means the impacts are non-unique. Three things: A) press them on if the alt is
vague. Because if it is, that's not only unfair (how can you respond to the alt if you
don't know what it is, AND it allows them to be a moving target), but it means
they can't solve. In order to solve we would need to know exactly what action
needs to be taken. B) Press them on if they actually make solvency arguments. A
lot of kritiks will just explain what the alt is without explaining how the alt solves.
Hold the solvency of the alt to the same requirement that you would expect a
counterplan to solve for a disad. C) If the alt has never been done, argue that

there's no empirical evidence that shows the alt is realistic. If you're going to say
there's an alternative to capitalism, give me an example of a country that has
done that alternative and has been successful. Otherwise, the alt is wishful
thinking.

11. No link. The NEG says you do something; say you don't do it. Statism kritik: You
rely on the state. Umm... no I don't! This is one of the simplest responses to a K,
and if it's there, you don't have to get into the pesky impacts and alt. However,
remember, this is a defensive argument, so the neg might try to win off a risk of
a link. You should say in response that that's absurd: that means ANYTHING
links to the K on a risk. The link debate should be viewed as a binary: you either
link or don't link.
This argument especially works if the link is vague and/or generic. For instance, suppose
you read an AC that defends the ICC as the agent of action. The NEG reads an Empire
Kritik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)), and the link is about multinational
institutions. However, you should say No link their link evidence doesn't say why
specifically the ICC promotes Empire. Maybe multinational institutions like the UN does,
but absent specific evidence about the ICC, don't give them the argument. In short, if
the link is vague and/or generic, you can wiggle out of it.

12. No impact chances are there is actually an impact, you just want to mitigate it as
much as possible. Or, maybe there isn't a terminal impact. So what if we
dehumanize people? What happens? Or, maybe we don't know what the impact is.
A lot of times kritik debaters will throw around terms like 'destroys value to life'
or 'dehumanization' or 'infinite violence' or 'ontological violence.' What do these
words mean? And if we don't know what they mean, then we shouldn't vote on the
argument. And, this means your impacts outweigh: at least the judge knows what
they're voting for when they vote for you, but we have no idea what voting against
the K does we only know vague impacts like 'makes ethics impossible.' Yo brah,
what does that even mean? My impact is extinction probably outweighs.

A kritik is just like any argument there's a link and impact (the only difference is that

there's an alt as well). Like with all arguments, you can mitigate or even completely
takeout the link or impact. It's not as bad as they say...

13. No alternative. Surprisingly, a lot of debaters don't read an alternative to their

kritiks. If they don't, this should be a game over issue. (Some people believe you
don't have to read an alt for the K to function, so long as the kritik explains how
the AFF comparatively links harder to the impact than the NEG. I guess that
makes some sense. And, if the alt is just straight up negate (or affirm), then
yeah, I guess in that situation you don't need an alt. If the alt is just don't
extend the same constitutional due process protections to non-citizens, then why
would the NEG need to read an external alternative? So yeah, I don't think it's
imperative to ALWAYS have an alt, and it depends on the specific K, and good
debaters will make args for why they don't have to win the alt. Usually they'll
make args like the one I just made: Even I lose the alt, just evaluate who
comparatively links harder.)

But, that doesn't really make sense to me. How do you evaluate whom comparatively links
harder if you don't have an alternative? What would the link link to?

There's also a theoretical issue here: Why should the NEG be able to criticize you
without presenting an alternative? That's not fair. It's also uneducational because then
there's no longer competing advocacies. In that situation, it really does force the AFF
to have to defend perfection. At least if there's an alt, the AFF can weigh the AC vs the
alt.

Finally, if there's not an alt, your first response should be NON-UNIQUE. For real.
Basically all a kritik is is a non-unique disad with an alternative. The AFF links to
capitalism. Thus, I could run a Cap DA. In fact, I've seen Cap DA's before. But, I've
seen FAR more Cap Ks than Cap DA's. Why? Because what uniqueness evidence do you
read with a Cap DA? Uniqueness: Currently the US isn't capitalist... lol wut?!?! Not

likely. The great thing about Ks, then, is that you can run a non-unique disad (a cap DA)
attach an alt to it, and gain uniqueness in that way. Remember, uniqueness is just
determined by the advocacy, so if you're running a DA you have to prove that the status
quo avoids the link. But, if you're running a K, you have to prove that the alt avoids the
link (and/or impact). So, if you can't find evidence that says the squo solves, you just
need to think of an alt, find evidence for it, then BAM!, you have yourself a K.

But if you lose the alt, then, chances are the K is non-unique. So, again, if you're
debating someone who runs a K without an alt, your first instinct should be non-unique,
because chances are it is.

Since the alternative is basically just an advocacy, the same thing goes here that goes
for all other advocacies. It shouldn't be vague. If it's conditional, you can run
conditionality bad theory. If there are more than one alternatives, then argue this is
unfair because it allows the NEG to remain a moving target. It also forces you to do
twice as much work, because now you have to argue against two (or potentially more)
alternatives. Having multiple alternatives is also uneducational, because it allows the
NEG to kick one at any time destroying any substantive clash on whether the alt is
good or bad.

Also, force the NEG to defend an alt that is positive and proactive, not just negative and
reactive. For instance, if the NEG reads a Cap kritik, then the alt shouldn't just be
Reject capitalism. Why is that not a very good alt? Because it doesn't really tell us
anything. It doesn't tell us what the alternative is. What if we reject capitalism and the
alternative is even worse? Much worse? The funny thing is though, most alts are this:
Reject X, Resist X, Vote Negative to reject the AFF. These aren't real
alternatives. They don't tell the judge what they're voting on; they just say what the
judge should vote against. You should argue that isn't enough to constitute an
alternative, and again, it forces you defend perfection. Make the NEG defend an actual
alternative. What should we do instead? This makes the kritik debater come off more
extreme. If the NEG kritiks human rights (they're Eurocentric), what's the alt? Yeah,
the concept of human rights has its flaws, but what do we do instead? Allow

governments to slaughter their people? Seriously, what's the alt: Do we get rid of human
rights? And, don't let the NEG defend an alt of like Criticize ____. That's not a
sufficient alternative either. Criticizing something, like human rights, doesn't tell us
what to do instead. And, you can easily perm that alt: we can extend constitutional due
process rights while still consistently criticizing them. We can take an action and still be
critical of that action.

14. Link turn there are two ways of doing this: A) Argue that you, for whatever
reason, do a better job of preventing the link. If the NEG runs a borders kritik,
you should as the AFF say, Turn: by treating citizens and non-citizens the same, I
do a better job of de-emphasizing the moral significance of borders, solving the
impact better. Ask yourself: Why does affirming the resolution better solve for
their impact? B) You can try to link your opponent into their own K. At worst, this
non-uniques the K (since you both link into it, and thus it's no longer a unique
reason to vote for your opponent); at best, if you can argue that your opponent
bites harder into the K, it becomes offensive for you. Their impacts are now a
reason to vote for you. For example, if your opponent runs a K of terror talk, but
then reads an off case with the word terrorism a bunch of times, ummm, yeah...
probably a performative contradiction? You could even argue I say the word
'terrorism' like once or twice, and my argument is that we should treat suspected
terrorists the same; the negative is the one who keeps using the word and
demonizing them. So, by reading the off case, they bite harder into the Kritik.
15. Impact turn imperialism kritik? Imperialism good. Borders kritik? Borders good.
Identity politics kritik? Identity politics good. You get the point. Impact turns
can be pretty good if you're prepared for them. The problem with them is that
you're opponent will probably be prepared for the impact debate. So I've found
that it's a little easier to go for link turns on Ks, but whatever, if you can go for it
and you're prepared to defend the link, impact turns can be strategic.

Just remember to NEVER make link turns AND impact turns... That's called a Double
turn and is an easy way to lose a round.

16. You can argue that the alternative is worse than the impact you link to. Think of
this as an alternative objection. For example, if the NEG reads a Cap K, and the
alt is communism, you can read evidence that says communism is really bad, that
historically it's failed (although that would probably be more of a solvency
argument), etc. If the NEG reads a non-violence K, and the alt is non-violence, you
can read evidence that says that non-violence breeds passivity in the face of
violence and is therefore immoral. Basically, just argue their alt is bad, and that's
a reason to vote against them. It might not be bad for the reasons in the impacts
(that would just be a link turn the alt bites harder into the impact), but you can
argue the alt is bad for X reason, and outweigh the Y impact in the K.

Just make sure you establish the status of the alt in CX. There's nothing worse than
making a bunch of turns and then the NEG goes Kick the alt it was conditional. In
fact, I would always establish the status of an advocacy (like an alt). Why? Because if
it's conditional, you can run conditionality bad theory. If it's unconditional, you can just
straight turn it and go for those turns in the 2AR. If it's dispositional, you can run
dispositionality bad theory.
Point is: When you establish the status of the advocacy, you can put together your
strategy theory or turns.

17. I've already talked about this. If the alt is vague or imprecise, make the argument
that you can vote on something if you don't know what it is. Also, we can never
know if it solves if it's too vague. Also, you can run theory. Vague advocacies allow
you to constantly change your advocacy in future speeches; you can always say
Nah that's not what my advocacy was! Point is: vague advocacies are unfair
because they allow you to be a moving target. What do I argue against if I can't
ever figure out what you're arguing?

18. This is another good argument, and works well in LD: there's no standard. If
you have a framework in your case, and your opponent reads offense, but doesn't
link that offense to your standard, you should say that that's a reason to not look
at those arguments, or minimally to prefer your offense because it links to an

explicit decision calculus. Same thing goes for an offensive kritik. You should say
that they just have floating offense or floating impacts. If they don't link
their impacts to your standard, or to a different standard, then there's no reason
to look to it. We have standards for a reason: they minimize judge intervention,
they filter/weigh arguments, they prevent muddled, unclear debates.

And, make the argument that even if their impacts seem bad, there's no way to know
unless they establish a moral framework. They didn't, so don't assume their impacts
mean anything.

I actually don't like this argument that much. I don't think standards are that
necessary, but some judges do, and this is a killer argument in front of those judges.
Minimally, I would make this a quick argument and see how the NEG responds. If they
undercover it, go for it in the 2A.

19. You can argue that you're not responsible for whatever the NEG criticizes. I can
imagine two situations when this might come up: A) If the NEG criticizes something in
the resolution, or B) If the NEG criticizes one of your cards. For example, if the NEG
kritiks something in the resolution for instance, suppose the NEG runs a 'Terror Talk'
kritik that says the word terrorism is bad, you should say in response, Don't hold me
responsible for the wording of the resolution I didn't write it! Or, if the NEG kritiks
the wording of one of your cards, you can say in response Why are you blaming me? You
should write an angry letter to this author, but don't hold me responsible for his/her
writing! Make sense? I think this argument becomes better if you do two things: 1.
Establish the distinction of what you should be required to defend vs what you shouldn't
be required to defend. You should make the argument that you should only be required
to defend the principle of the resolution, not necessarily its wording. Again, you didn't
write the resolution. Also, by advancing an interpretation like this, it's not as though
you're being shady and de-linking every possible NEG you're still defending the
principle of the resolution, so the NEG can still run whatever case they want; they just
can't kritik the wording/assumptions of the resolution. Also, make the argument that
you're only required to defend the advocacy of your position, not every single card per

se, so even if one of your cards is bad, or even if part of your case is objectionable, that
doesn't automatically mean you should lose. You're only responsible for the advocacy you
chose to defend, not for every card. 2. You need to impact this argument. Why is it bad
to punish you for something you're not responsible for? I would say something like It's
analogous to punishing someone for something that someone else said. This is clearly
immoral. Also, you can make a theory argument here. Is it really fair that the NEG can
kritik something in the resolution if you didn't write it? Collapsing the debate into
competing advocacies maintains fair division of ground for both debaters; forcing the
debate into a discussion of one word or assumption in one of your cards doesn't.