world in which the kind of plan could happen and the affirmative could happen and there isn't the negative consequence which is the disadvantage or the net benefit to that counter plan then that computation uh proves that there is no opportunity cost of the affirmative that was a little bit convoluted let me break it a little bit every counter plan needs to present a reason why it's better than the affirmative that is known as a net benefit if the permutation in which you do there's a common one is permutation do both where you do the counter plan and you do the affirmative also resolves the net benefit which means it does not link to it because it does not incur a disadvantage then the counter plan is not competitive which means the permutation would why i think it might be i think it might be helpful if we gave them an example so yeah does somebody here okay so zayn what after you read qualified immunity probably i'm guessing uh marijuana or political right yeah that works too okay so let's say let's say somebody read a counter plan against you and said oh the federal government should not decriminalize marijuana the state should decriminalize marijuana and i'm sure you have like plenty of good responses to that like i bet one of them is probably like oh the federal government is the only one that can create like a national regulation but uh what would your what would your like top-level response be towards the counter plan that just has the states do the same thing as the federal government let's start brainstorming responses i'm asking anybody anybody can anybody can speak up right like why okay somebody explain to me why the fact that the states can also decriminalize marijuana is a reason why the plan that zane is presented would be a bad idea does anybody know why it would be a bad idea they could probably say federal legislation is ignored by the states or something okay so so that counter plan of void so you're saying the net benefit to that counter plan would be that it avoids some sort of argument about the state's circumvention is that correct syria yeah okay so let's assume for a second that uh somebody reads a separate counter plan versus the marijuana affirmative that says we should give every drug addict a million dollars to get their lives back on track okay and then let's say this counterpart has like so many amazing solvency mechanisms you have no solvency arguments to read against city and excellent evidence so what do you do you can pass the plan and also give a million dollars exactly so in this instance there is no net benefit to counterplan which means that permutation duvel would be sufficient so what does that mean permutation do build means that you can do both the affirmative and the counter plan so basically what you are telling the judge is that the counter plan is not a reason to reject our plan right like just because they've isolated there is another excellent policy out there that's not a reason why our policy is bad right just because we can give a million dollars to drug addicts that isn't a reason why we shouldn't also decriminalize marijuana right does that make sense okay and who has the question about the permutation do you want to give some more context about what happened in the round what they permuted anything like that if you remember um so i don't remember but about what you just said i was a bit confused um so when you say that like um both the counter plan and the like the actual affirmative plan can be passed i'm a bit confused why would if the counter plan solves for the affirmative wouldn't that make the affirmative unnecessary so then why would you say didn't pass both well the point is that just because somebody says there's another way to solve the problem why is that a reason why your way to solve the problem is wrong because yeah just because they say like oh we can solve the problem this way oh we can solve the problem that way like that's not responsive that's not a reason why your plan is a bad idea it's just a reason why there's lots of policies out there right that's just a fact about the world there's a lot of different ways to do stuff and those other ways aren't necessarily reasons why your way is bad that's kind of a roundabout way of explaining it but to answer andrew's question the permutation is rarely something that you advocate for it's just this test to see whether or not this counter plan is mutually exclusive or presents an opportunity cost so for example let's talk about this round i don't know the exact counter plan or the decision that was involved but so mba presented their plan for education policy monte vista was like counter plan let's do this um the debate they were having was where the affirmative team mba said okay we could possibly do all of the app and maybe part of the counter plan and that would resolve many of the disadvantages that you talk about so in that case it's not something that they're advocating for but it's just a test of whether or not the counter plan that the negative team has proposed in this debate would actually be a reason why the affirmative is a bad idea and why there's actually an opportunity cost rather than just the counter plan being able to solve um other questions saket abhishek rohan feel free to undo um i have two questions the first is what is durable fiat um i was watching like one of like like the semi's round and the toc i think it was mba bj versus like monte vista um and what exactly is durable fiat so so first okay nemai go ahead yeah so fiat is a concept and policy debate it means let it be done in latin and what that term means is that when impulsive you're obviously considering the desirability of passing a plan that plan receives fiat which is the assumption in debates that the implementation of that policy will occur without hindrance that means that circumvention arguments about how president biden won't enforce this policy or the doj won't enforce this policy aren't really a question of debate because that should be up for debate because enforcement and the passage of the policy is already factored in that's what fiat is durable fiat is the concept that that fiat is not really something that's contestable and applies to applies like durably in that it's not really flexible that means that president biden is never in the future gonna roll back any of these measures etc so it's just like assuming that it's set in stone yeah basically if i was to say rohan that like oh your policy that uh like removes qualified immunity doesn't matter because in 20 years when don jr becomes president he's going to repeal your policy right like that isn't that isn't exactly what durable fiat is but it's the same idea right it's the idea that we shouldn't be debating about like small concerns about whether or not politicians are going to be doing xyz we should be debating about the merits of this policy which means we can durably fiat that 20 years from now this policy will still exist purely for the focus that in this debate round we can talk about whether or not that would be a good or bad scenario does that make sense yeah that makes sense yeah um so durable okay so just means that like it's inflexible that it's not like the other thing that we talked about earlier like attitudinal fiat which is dependent on like political attitudes and stuff yeah you're imagining you're imagining a scenario in which this policy would be implemented durably like in the future and it would not be overturned and such and such got it okay my second question was about so i noticed that like in this in like in the same debate uh when the two when the two-way came up in his two ac he started saying stuff like perm do the af perm do the counter plan and like our perm do the app and like some like other stuff about it i don't remember exactly the top of my head but like what do all of those mean so like what's the difference between perm do the off and perm do the counter plan or like perm do both um i kind of doubt that he said perm do the f you might have misheard what he said what likely happened was perm to the off and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the counter plan basically what two ways do sometimes is just throw a bunch of permutations so in that case um curtin to the ethanol non-mutually exclusive parts of the counter plan would be like let's let's do let's do both but when the negative team says this part of the counter plan is incompatible with the app then we'll just be like yeah that's the permutation um like obviously one of the obvious neg answers is like you have to like specify what those parts are but it's similar to perm to both except like the negative like when the negative argues like this part is mutually exclusive you can't do that like the app will say that doesn't apply to the perm um prompt you both is straightforward perm to the counter plan basically says that the counter plan is either like just the app or just the app with an extra part added um some other perms that you might have encountered if it was a process counter plan debate there might be some weird perms like perm do the app in the process of the counter plan i.e do the app by consulting uh like consulting a human rights impact assessment or something like that but generally it's just all similar flavors of the argument that whole all of the af plus some or all of the counter plan would be a legitimate way to resolve the net benefit don't worry about if you don't totally grasp these concepts yet they're really complicated you'll understand them over time you spend you spend a lot of time on permutations camp as well uh that makes sense thank you abhishek rhythm any other so if the affirmative can just claim that they uh do a permutation both like they uh they do the af and the counter plan can't they just do that for every counter plan the necklace out would there be like a downside to doing that so oftentimes the 2ac will make that argument versus every counter plan but they don't usually go for that so let's take the example of qualified immunity so the affirmative team wait affirmative team says qualified immunity we should abolish that negative team says the states should abolish qualified immunity and their net benefit i.e reason why the counter plan is better is that um passing federal legislation on qualified immunity would be um controversial it blocks ex-piece of legislation from being passed in that case permutations you both wouldn't make that much sense because the state's counter planets on its own would avoid that net benefit it avoids nuclear war because it doesn't create political controversy at the federal level but if you do both then it has the federal government act that creates political controversy and controversy and causes extinction oh okay okay i understand i understand basically your response to perm to both of an egg is that any inclusion of the plan would be bad because it triggers a net benefit which the counterpart would avoid yeah zayn um do you have like an example of an advantage counter plan yeah so um one that comes to mind is like if the affirmative were about environmental crimes like cutting the amount that these corporations the amount of pollution that these corporations put out the advantage counter plan would be like the united states federal government should invest in carbon capture which is technology that pulls in carbon from the air to reduce those kinds of emissions and greenhouse gases the reason it's an advantage counter plan is it it solves the app through a completely separate mechanism it's not like it doesn't enact criminal justice reform um it doesn't really create new crimes for environmental polluters but it solves the impact level of the app which is warming by taking in carbon emissions it's important to note that advantage kind of plan is an extremely broad term almost every counterpoint is a form of advantage counter plan but generally if you watch one think about it and vantage counterpoint is any counter plan that solves the advantage basically their impact usually they attempt to solve the impacts sometimes they consider the internal links via an alternative process that does not involve the resolution so if the resolution is criminal justiform it will attempt to solve criminal salt like whatever is bad like ben talked about warming via non-criminal justice reform process rhythm do you have a question yeah so um for the same debate we're talking about the um monte vista versus um mba one at the beginning of the one ac he ran he read like three arguments or four arguments it wasn't advantages or thumpers and i but i was just wondering like what were like the arguments normally read at the beginning when i see because were those the framing arguments like the probability stuff yeah yeah this is something this is something you don't really need to worry about right now like like literally don't worry about that short answer there are lots of different arguments that you read the beginning of the one you see something like framing when you're reading uh an affirmative that does not have an extinction impact it's like a song it's called a soft left affirmative um when you have like structural violence impacts for example if you read an affirmative about qualified immunity that is a soft left affirmative because you're considering structural violence against minorities along with that because people read extinction impacts against you people include a kind of argument called framing with the argument that structural violence that is happening immediately now matters more than these ridiculous extinction scenarios is it over simplification but just an easy way to think about like this is just a framing argument anything else is like silly like arguments about like preamps no war will happen things like that it's just they just did this because they broke a new affirmative and didn't want to get to an advantage until later you're not going to be doing this especially in the world of online debate because you're just sending out the entire documents there's no strategic advantage to that basically um it boils down to like answering disadvantages with extinction impacts so in that debate um the off read a app without an extinction impact and once the negative introduces like an argument that the app causes an extinction impact they'll obviously always win that that matters more so like what nemai was mentioning about framing is a way to prove that like this kind of structural violence should come before these low probability like insane nuclear war scenarios okay thank you why would someone um like in that same debate why would someone read like that thumper in the beginning like i understand like thumper's like saying like it should have triggered it but doesn't but are they doing that just to squirrel out of having to face those arguments or it's basically a preamps what like what the card likely said was like the government just passed this education policy so when the one and c will so that when the one and seven inevitably reads disadvantages based on the usfg passing education policy then the two we see on that disadvantage can just be like cross apply one ac insert the site of that card and based on that they can just cross apply the answer that like education policy has already been passed it thumps it aside because um if education policy were truly this bad then we would face a nuclear war right now just because of this old policy and also this is like a small question but like in um like in person debate will be like in will you just have papers and like do what they did where you just give the papers to them after you read it or that's a new affirmative type of thing because they were being squirrely and they read their new affirmative off of paper so you can't scroll ahead in the doc most of the time it's always off computers but wouldn't they have to give it like 30 minutes before or that not in this case so they're usually disclosed but when you read a new affirmative you don't disclose it's strategic because the negative team is no time prepared before the round okay thank you okay if there's no more questions then we'll be hopping into the thing we'll be going over today can everyone see this yeah all right yes cool so today we're going to be going over critiques um it's one of the most fascinating complex and powerful arguments in debate um and it's often also the bane of like freshman sophomore debaters existence just because it can get confusing so yeah let's just hop into it it'll be confusing at first but over time you'll develop an understanding for it so what's a critique i have the urban dictionary definition posted here kind of a satirical explanation of it but it boils down to criticizing the mindset logic or assumptions behind the affirmative um you should probably write this down it criticizes the mindset logic or assumptions behind the affirmative this is different from disadvantages or counter plans oftentimes the disadvantage is like passing the app causes this bad thing but with critiques this can this can be an argument that you may you make but typically it's more like your the logic behind the affirmative is x bad thing and we'll explain how that um how how that contextualizes the specific arguments it'll often be specific to like a specific ideology that the affirmative subscribes to um whether it's capitalism whether it's securitization so yeah there's so as i explained before there's a lot of different flavors of the critique there's the capitalism critique about how the affirmative is capitalist there is the security critique how the affirmative is really over hyping threats saying that all like saying that nuclear war will happen when that only causes confusion and there's stuff like the biopower critique talking about how the state control over people's lives is bad and how the affirmative takes part of that so let's go into the structure of how a critique works again this is different from a disadvantage because it's not saying that the affirmative causes something bad but it's criticizing the sort of assumptions that underpin the affirmative and treat it as some sort of research project right so first is framework framework oftentimes is not explicit in the one nc it's more of a debate that starts during the 2ac but it's really important with this critiques because it talks it it's a disc it's a it's a debate about how the judge should evaluate the debate there's oftentimes different lenses typically the team that's reading the app will say that the judge should be a policy maker evaluate what's the best policy while the negative will say the judge is an educator they should keep track of what research model is better who has presented the best research and because of that they would prefer the negative because the negative is trying to prove that the affirmative research model the ideas that they've presented are not good um so oftentimes some of these negative some of the arguments that the negative team will make would be like fiat isn't real we're not gonna actually pass a plan but the one thing that we can do with debate is teach ourselves how to be um good people how to create change outside of debate and as a result they can explain that like breaking down capitalist structures is something that we should do and the judge should endorse that by voting negative because the affirmative is capitalist the affirmative in that case would be like would explain that debating about the affirmative is a good idea debating about those consequences is good and as a result they should debate about what actually the policy does so framework is kind of where k is diverged from disadvantages so if you think about it the disadvantage agrees with the framework of the f we're going to evaluate the consequences of the plan that the affirmative has proposed the k sort of framework is going to disagree with the app it's less about the consequences of the app but more about for example what kind of authors they're reading the kind of research that they've done maybe the ideas and justifications for the app that exist and because of that the k is less about the consequences of the f this has been confusing for at least the first five minutes does anyone have any questions all right if not then i'll move on to the oh again really quickly uh will k's be like the only if it's like red on the negative will be like the only thing that they read or will they also have other components like a disadvantage it's very dependent some case will say that we should never talk about extinction impacts because i don't know it invests in the security state and in that case they wouldn't read like disadvantages that have extinction impacts because that would link to their own k and it would prove that their scholarship is bad on the other hand there are some caves that you can read with this ads no mind you want to expand on that i mean every k can be read either as a one-off position which means you're only reading one critique this means that the only argument the negative team is presenting is just a bunch of cards that they're reading on the k and the one in c but there's not absolutely nothing stopping them from reading okay multiple disadvantages multiple counterplans in fact that's what most onesies will look like a variety of arguments whether one k one decide one counter one k two dis ads more than one counter plan it's very rare people read more than 1k in a round but there's absolutely nothing stopping them from combining with other arguments noah ben said about contradictory positions this normally is not an issue because in policy debate the negative team can present multiple different viewpoints for why they think the affirmative is a bad idea so even if it is contradictory for example they're reading an argument why government action is bad and we should never engage in it there's nothing stopping them from saying but government action can also cause a political instability and of the politics decide etc so yeah it just depends on the debate zayn um so when the negative team is like arguing that uh capitalism is bad like they base their entire argument on capitalism as bad but then the affirmative can't like respond to that by saying like capitalism is good you can totally respond to that by saying capitalism is good which i'll go over a few slides later and it often becomes big debates that we've actually gotten into this year a rhythm i'm a bit confused about how the net can have like multiple views on the app because if like let's say they um i forgot the example you provided but if they made like the example of like i don't know i'm gonna say something like government's bad but then they also say that government helps in this way how can both of those be like they can't say both of those arguments right so first don't worry about it too much because it's rarely an issue it's only when you read a cave that's very criticizing of the state as well as these arguments but the second level of that is that the it's obviously debatable given that the neg is making arguments that like scholarship and the sort of underpinnings of the arguments we introduce matter but what the negative would say in responses explain that even if it's contradictory as long as they prove that the 1ac or the app is a bad idea then they've met their burden and they don't really need to resolve any contradictions it's confusing at first but maybe sophomore or junior year when you get more into going for case or become more flex reading both policy arguments in case you'll definitely get used to it rohan rohan are you there can you can you hear me now wait hang on it's like okay um wait in regards to a critical argument oh wait sure just forgot my question wait i'll revamp later my bad okay no problem all right now i'm gonna move on to the links so the link debate is the argument that what the app does is problematic often times you'll find maybe two flavors of them either one that's based off of the effects of the plan kind of like a disadvantage or one based on maybe the more theoretical aspects of the plan so um we can take a couple of examples here um are you familiar you probably aren't but basically we've read this affirmative that decriminalizes drugs against k teams this year and they're so it kind of showcases some of the different arguments that k teams would go for so one prominent link that a team from texas went for against adarsha and syria against isaf was that decriminalizing drugs will improve the policies of like will reduce the police's policing on these minorities and they explain that it's just an excuse for the criminal justice system to kind of migrate elsewhere an excuse that they're not really that violent anymore because they're not prosecuting um drug users that harshly and because of that the criminal justice system can just go to other groups and punish them super harshly without facing the kind of criticism that they face right now in this case this is kind of an example of the former where it's like the off actually causes a bad thing decriminalizing drugs would be a deep criminalizing drugs would be a bad idea because it allows the criminal justice system to get away with more violence um another argument that could be made is that this app only resolves criminal punishment not civil punishment one team from i think oakland managed to make this into an argument more like a disadvantage that the app causes something but the way you could explain it where it's not necessarily an uh cause of the app but more of the ideology of the app is that the affirmative says that it's okay for people to get criminal punishments oh no it's not okay for people to get criminal punishments but it's okay for them to get civil punishments and in that case they would explain that like that kind of idea that distinction between punishment is bad and that um in that case the underpinnings or the scholarship of the app would be bad we'll have better examples later with specific case but the last thing i'll say on the argument about links is that you want to avoid links of omission often times these will appear in the form of arguments that the affirmative does not do enough or the affirmative does not go far enough um the idea of that like civil link about decriminalizing drugs on the criminal but not civil level could be construed by the app as a link of a mission it's that they don't actually um they don't actually legalize all drugs and people will still get civil punishment essentially the argument ben is making is that when you're making a link it isn't enough for you just to say the app doesn't go far enough it's right an offensive reason for it's a bad thing so for example this argument about civil punishment if your argument is just that the affirmative remains like like keep civil punishments that's the link of omission but the way you turn that into an actual link is by arguing that because civil punishments are allowed it'll cause a shift to civil punishments which a continues the violence but b is bad because it allows the police to have increased legitimacy and in this car in this form it's a part of a capitalism critique so allows the government to gain increased resources and control of capital over individuals if that makes sense that's like a link for this decriminalizing drugstore might have been talked about they're two components again right it isn't just that you don't go far enough it's that you give the police legitimacy and give them the resources by freeing it up to go after other people so if that's just like okay an lk link needs to be an offensive reason place primitive is a bad idea but again what a link what a link means is obviously up for debate later another good example of an of a link that's to the ideology of the affirmative is say if the iaf says we should invest in health care do subsidies and all uh invest in health care improve the um like the economy regarding medical services the negative could read the cap k and the capitalism k critiquing it for being capitalist it wouldn't necessarily be the one thing that saves capitalism but the idea that the that the app is saying that we should use capitalism in order to improve our medicine they would explain that that's bad so tldr of all of this is that links are a reason why the app is a bad idea and falls into those ideologies they'll either be a reason why the effect of the act is bad just like a disadvantage or why the ideology or the assumptions of the af like with the capitalism critique would be bad rohan you said that sometimes that the negative has to like sort of critique the scholar the scholarship of the affirmative what is like what do you mean by scholarship like the authors of the affirmative or yeah sure that's a weird debater thing that um everyone picks up basically the scholarship is all of the one ac not just the plan but like the justifications that they've presented for why the app should be passed the evidence that they've cited for it um the different impacts that they've brought up etc for example the cffa from cfaa affirmative that we discussed earlier which is what we had at the beginning of the year which is the computer fraud and abuse act that comes from cyber security scholars who are arguing that our current cyber security infrastructure is under threat and that russians and chinese uh threat actors could take advantage of us that is a scholarship and justifications is we are arguing by reading evidence from scholars who are obviously from the defense industry etc who are arguing that america needs to show up our defense capabilities and allow security researchers to come and protect our grid electrical grid from foreign threats from russia china north korea iran isis etc a common criticism uh like to talk about what ben mentioned earlier security k is really clear here security criticism what this argument is that the affirmative scenarios are blown up ridiculous and not legitimate so it would take advantage of the fact that our evidence is from these interventionist authors defense industry and we argue that these are people who are blowing up national security threats when there are none and fabricating it and using that as a reason why our justifications and scholarship is bad and justifies american foreign interventionism etc so that's just the reason why um the reasons why you think the affirmative plan is a good idea matters a common example that k teams will go for is that many non-interventionists and like don't support didn't support the war in afghanistan for very different reasons from the reasons why uh anti-colonialist anti-imperialists didn't the former opposed this war because it would be too costly and it would put american lives on the line etc the latter opposed these wars and intervention because it is against is unethical you're invading these countries etc so what is in our self in our self-interest the other is actually caring about other people it's just an example of why teams will claim that justifications matter wait am i what did you mean by like a k team sorry that just means a team that reads critiques teams will specialize in reading positions that are primarily k arguments that means that these teams might only read one one uh argument against your affirmative that's why ben actually mentioned really different affirmative against these sort of teams they tend to prefer um and enjoy going for these critical arguments so some different some different affirmatives are more strategic against than while others are not for example the cfa permit if i talked about might not be strategic because our authors are defense scholars whereas this war on drugs affirmative where we decriminalize drugs is more strategic because a vast majority of authors both especially on the left which is the main literature base basically the people who are writing all these critic critical articles come from are writing about from the perspective of it don't make that make sense the bellarmine actually used to be a k team because while it takes more work to go heavily into like all this critical theory you also have to do less like um less just like every heavy prep on specific policies um now we've we're more of a policy team we specialize in like presenting usfg policies on the app explaining why policies are bad on the neg and typically this divide is the vast majority of debate there are some teams who are good at going for both uh k's and policy arguments but for the vast majority it's pretty divided rhythm like as as you can as you keep debating you'll find either like a clivity for one or the other one that you enjoy more that you vibe with going forward does everyone have bellarmine a policy team largely i think a con focus is one of okay like like okay and i've gone for case before but we're not like a k team in the same way that like adarsh and surya have gone for case a lot too and like they're more of a flex you know but then my name i and ben are now a full-fledged k team yeah yeah yeah sure rhythm um so i'm a bit confused so um a type of k is like saying why the um some evidence is bad right not necessarily i'll send out a couple examples but that's a little bit oversimplifying to say evidence is bad critic boutiques to make structural claims about how the world works for example the capitalism critique will say that the world is structured in the manner right now that is capitalist and neoliberal and that is harmful because it is causing exploitation um it is causing like a fascism etc and that is bad primarily they had an offensive reasoning impact to this a common one for capitalism is climate change global warming and how the only way to solve it is communism something like that for example so a component of it is obviously going to be the way you conceptualize things i.e through your evidence is harmful that's only a part of it it's by no means an all-encompassing part if you want like a blanket definition for what a k criticizes i would say that it criticizes the justifications for the plan for example um with like the example of investments in healthcare the justification for investing in healthcare is that our economic system of capitalism can do good and improve healthcare and they would critique that with the security critique they would say that the affirmative is justifying like we have to believe that this nuclear war will happen unless we pass the app and the justification for it is that um like some random cyber security researcher said so thank you okay let's try to keep on moving because we only have 18 minutes left so if you guys don't mind we might end up going a little bit over but we'll see finally is the impact this is often actually where the name of the case come from for example the capitalism critique their impact is that capitalism is bad um with a critique about settler colonialism the argument is that the affirmative causes settler colonialist violence it's the bad thing that happens as a result of the ideology you critique so keep in mind that the negative team isn't saying the one policy that the f is presenting is going to be the one thing that causes capitalism to stay but what it is saying is that the affirmative is part of this ideology that is going to cause some bad things so some examples could be the capitalism critique saying that capitalism causes extinction through environmental exploitation um the security critique could say securitization causes extinction because presenting others as threats creates self-fulfilling prophecies that actually actualize that threat i.e pushing away terrorists actually makes them extra violent etc finally is the alternative if you thought about decay as a disad and a counter plan the alternative would be your counter plan it's what you pres what you present as an alternative to the affirmative that basically avoids the impacts of the kind of structures that the affirmative has proposed there's still the same debates over permutations which i'll explain later but there are many different types the capitalism critique could endorse a communist revolution the security critique could say that they reject the affirmative security discourse it doesn't necessarily have to be something material in the sense of a counter plan that you propose it could be about given that the k is about one's scholarship and justifications for the app the k could be about getting rid of those justifications like rejecting the security scholarship um oftentimes you're not going to prove that the app is the one thing that makes the world worse than the status quo so the alternative can also function like a uniqueness counter plan it says that the alternative is better than the app but thiaf would not be compatible with this alternative in order to improve the way the world works the final thing that you want to keep in mind with these alternatives is that oftentimes given that they're critiquing the ideology these alternatives can just be like about doing the off like passing the same policy but without the one card from someone who said something offensive in the one and one ac it can get more nuanced than that but those are called floating picks pix stands for plan inclusive critique and it's basically that they do the auth except for one specific representation or one specific piece of scholarship that was part of the one ac in that case you you want to make arguments as to why the floating you would want to figure out whether that floating pick could actually include the off and since the negative is going to be like yeah we could obviously solve everything the app has talked about without this one tiny thing the 2ac can make theory arguments about how floating picks are unfair about how they ruin clash between how they ruined clash in these debates etc you know you'll also get a lot of instruction as to how to approach um these k's and figure out whether whether their floating picks are all account so finally is answering critiques so at the top you're always going to have a framework argument because the negative is arguing that the consequences of the app do not matter in order for you to prove that your app is a good idea you would obviously want to prove that the consequences of your app are a good idea because that's what you've prepared for so you're always going to have a framework argument at the top of your 2ac block answering the k then there's kind of two routes to addressing these critiques first you could impact turn the critique like zayn mentioned earlier like they'll they'll talk about how capitalism is bad but they're kind of assuming that capitalism is bad so you could just impact that capitalism is good some other examples could be if the negative team read a critique of settler colonialism and were like the f is a bad idea we should decolonize instead then you could also impact on that you would not say that settler colonial violence is good but instead what you would be saying is that the the entire point of the critique is to avoid passing the app which causes a nuclear war because the critique is about avoiding our ability to solve nuclear war then it's obviously a bad idea um so in the top left also you can see that they mention a hedgehog oftentimes these affirmatives versus k teams that are meant to impact during the critique we'll talk about hegemony because there's large bodies of scholarship that they can defend so it can also involve some explanation of why your justifications are a good idea second is the permutation route and the no link route say the affirmative team like see we take the example of decriminalizing drugs as explained before and then the negative team makes that critique about how the affirmative actually bolsters the criminal justice system the affirmative team could make multiple arguments they could say permutation do both because we because we um like take this radical step against the criminal justice system and decriminalize drugs that would obviously like not cause a bunch of um police to get legitimacy it would not cause all these bad things that the negative talks about you could also explain why there's no link that you actually link turn the affirmative just like a disadvantage in the sense that you actually reduce the power of the criminal justice system they can no longer go into these minority communities and police for drugs etc let me see if there's anything else yep that's pretty much it for answering critiques just a couple of other tidbits critiques are confusing and so there's a couple of things that you can do to check back against that you definitely want to read these cards in depth try to understand what they say and often times even though they use a bunch of jargon and a bunch of weird words they sometimes are not meaning meaningless garbage that on the other hand some teams will present arguments that just don't make sense so you don't really want to take them at face value for example they'll read cards that are tagged like weighing weighing policy implementation only helps the settler state and when you're faced with arguments like that you should ask yourself why if you read into your card if you read into their cards if you ask them in crosstalk then you'll be able to make big strides on with these case and understanding them so now i'm going to turn it over to namai who's going to give you a few examples of what these caves look like et cetera oh actually achillian you said you had a question yeah really quickly can um case also be read on the app because i thought that was so there are k's that can be read on the app we'll go over them later because it's because it's kind of different remember k's oftentimes are criticizing something regarding the resolution like whether state action is acceptable so it usually isn't compatible with presenting a policy that is something that the usfg should do but there are ways that k teams have read their arguments on the f that are pretty complicated but we'll go over them yeah and to be clear when you're reading a k on the negative you're generally criticizing the policy of the f right but if you're reading a k on the f it's totally different because now there's no policy to critique so you're critiquing something else right so we'll get into exactly what they're critiquing how they're doing it in a totally separate meeting because that's like another hour's worth of discussion all right everyone i should have sent a document it should be on slack it is called k examples just a note before we again just is a very very small number of critiques there's like only a couple here there are hundreds of different possible critical arguments that are present in debate we're not going to be going over everything in this document either i just put a couple examples you can look through them i'll be going over a couple more import a couple of very common ones that you will definitely come across at some point in debate um so let's begin right yeah um i'll i get to go okay i can share my screen right now okay i've also tossed this file into the freshman fast folder so it'll be synced on dropbox in a few seconds are you able to see my screen yeah we can see it in mind okay perfect perfect uh let's begin by talking about this first argument the capitalism k so i'll give you like a couple seconds just to take a look at it but clearly this is pretty straightforward it's saying that capitalism is bad right it causes systemic failures and exponentially increases inequality and pushes the working class that's brink otherwise fascists will take over enters global war right now i'm just going to go over capitalism as an example and then i'll have you as a couple exercises just have you um guys look through the next so this is talking about criticizing neoliberal globalization so there's a lot of components here right now on phase you're presented with one a structural theory about how the world is working it is a world where neoliberal globalization dominates the world it is causing systemic failures increasing inequalities and the impact is fascist takeover and global war this is pretty some big impacts that are being tossed around here uh the next card here it says vote neg to endorse the fifth international does anyone take a shot at guessing what this is what component of uh the arguments that venice get when started going over uh just feel free to just raise your hand on mute and shout out guess there are a couple of components of the kit right occuline whatever yeah what do you think it is the alternative exactly exactly good job good job this is the alternative it is providing an alternative policy rather than enacting criminal justice reform we should endorse the fifth international which is a communist a world global communist revolution so you work with international coalitions to combat current capital systems of governance so the alternative here that they propose is rather than working through capitalist norms in the united states federal government we should endorse other policies other institutions that are capable of actual change and this is just the last argument that bolsters the alternative it says that because of coronavirus we need to endure assisted international or will die and it provides a bunch of reasons why a sort of impact um really quickly that made sense right to anyone does anyone have any lingering questions before we jump into the next one we'll just call on people to take a shot at guessing are you allowed to just like condense your like link and or well wait yeah your framework link and uh wait uh and impacted like one card like what you did here or yeah yeah it's very common for teams especially in the one see when you don't have a lot of time especially in this the team that read this particular argument that i stole this card these cards from tends to read a bunch of different arguments this is just one of those many arguments the link is included here the first piece of evidence it not only includes an impact but also a link it argues that the affirmative is buying into this problematic capitalist structure ben one thing i'll add about this is that unless you're k hack like namai uh many of us don't really understand what it means to say neoliberalism neoliberal globalization is at its breaking point and is collapsing into neo-fascism now so when looking at case you can kind of break down these sentences you see that it starts with neoliberal and then goes into explaining goes into explaining how if the status quo continues it'll cause systemic failures it'll cause fascist takeover ensures global war so you can kind of understand that you're saying neo-liberalism which is kind of a synonym close to a synonym for capitalism is bad not not quite but yeah close to a synonym for capitalism is bad and then you can also break it down into the link and the impact so their argument is that failure to theorize a new international paradigm which they would kind of spin to be the off would result in a fascist takeover and intro's global war which would be the impact um honestly it's not very clear what it means to fail to theorize a new international paradigm and don't worry if the link is not apparent by the one nc because oftentimes they won't explain it to the block or it'll take cross-ex time into routa get them to explain that so this is one of those examples where they're gonna make a lot of big words you can one break it down but also two keep in mind that some of these have not some of these like link arguments have not been fleshed out thoroughly and that you can either like spend time on it in prospects figure out what their argument is or like you'll still have time to answer in the one ar if they expand on it during the block yeah a lot of these arguments rely on words things like that that might not on face make sense that's what's important to read the evidence which generally doesn't like it it makes more sense like it gives some examples of what fascism looks like it talks about how it's rising um it also talks about becoming predatory uh so just read through the evidence generally to get an idea of the argument because the tags are bosworthy very like doesn't really reflect the meaning of the actual argument so it's important to take a look there um yeah just a mix this this first example isn't great because there isn't a clear example of a link because it's more tossed into here but we'll see with the later next this next argument that there is clear one um can we go next to the abolition k just because i think ben also mentioned but it'll be easier to go through each part yeah yeah okay yeah this is a really good example uh before i don't want to explain this i want you guys to take a shot here um socket what is this card uh well assuming it'd be in the order that you gave us that's just a framework not quite um keep in mind i left over this but framework is usually an argument that kind of starts in the 2ac the one nc might hint at it but usually there's only three of the four arguments that are made during the one inch not quite a lot of a lot of teams will read an extra card that's about framework in there but it depends it sometimes becomes relevant sometimes it's not the link then because that's why they have there's something wrong exactly yeah this is a link it talks about the when he sees cursoral devolution that is clear identifying a reason for why the affirmative is a bad idea because it expands and the legitimacy of the prison system it quote smooths over the internal legitimacy crisis this means right now people are criticizing the criminal criminal justice system we're seeing the injustice but they fix forms of this injustice and they just blur the borders what that means is by opening the difference by letting people out of prison for example the government stows control over a large swath of these individuals even after they leave the prison how the affirmative doesn't really change anything it makes things worse because it gives legitimacy to the prison system all right this next card is kind of a continuation of that it says that reforms like continue whatever bad thing what is this card the rodriguez card uh rhythm i'm sorry did you call on me yeah um can you repeat the question what is this card what component i'll highlight the words that you should pay attention to i'm thinking about it impact exactly good job detects a perpetual genocidal warfare and the social death of millions so saying the criminal justice system is dehumanizing its violent and it's uh has these negative consequences because it one causes violence on quote millions of people so that's the impact here and this last piece of evidence what do you think this is uh zayn um is that the alternative oh yeah it's the alternative yes it says yeah yeah pretty clearly abolitionist ethic this just means that you should embrace the abolition of the criminal justice system like get rid of prisons like conceptualize that the criminal justice system can never get better uh andrew what argument why does this argument uh what would you say to respond to this argument for example what is one possible response to why this argument that is saying the criminal justice system reforms criminal justice reform gives the prison legitimacy and allows it to wage violent violence so we should abolish it how would you respond to that uh no link the affirmative plan reduces the capacity for prisons to commit acts of violence that's yeah that's a good that's a very good argument you're saying that we are not crucial devolution what we are is cutting down and reducing the prison's control not expanding it or giving any legitimacy yeah that's a good argument that is what's known as a linked turn because your argument is that you are hurting the prison because this is a link you're turning that argument by saying no we are not helping the prison system we are hurting them uh rohan what is another possible argument you could say to respond to this you could do an impact turn you could say that an abolitionist ethic is actually a bad thing because it for instance could cause crime and wreaks havoc in our communities yeah this is this is an argument that can be made that like in order to combat murderers uh rapists and other criminals we need a criminal justice system that's an imp yeah you're impact hearing you think it's a bad idea to embrace an abolition ethic because it causes more violence on the groups that you seek to help okay um abhishek what's another argument um remember one of the first things ben talked about i'll give you a hint talking about the justifications sorry i don't understand talking about the way we should talk about criminal justice reform whether or not the government like whether or not it's a good idea to talk about policies how we should think about debate i'm sorry i i don't know no don't worry about it uh andrew can you repeat the question sorry i do something yeah what's the what's another argument the two ac could say to respond to this argument in the one and see about the k um let's think you can s perm the old alt i guess yeah yeah that's that's a very good answer like this it wasn't what i was hinting at earlier but yeah you definitely need to have a permutation we could hurt the person system decrease what it's doing while also working towards abolition as your end goal yeah that's a good argument um does anyone want to volunteer about another the last argument that i was thinking earlier about responding to the way we think about things rohan you could say that this model of debate isn't good uh because like you have to view it through like a logical policy making sort of perspective not from a not from a judge being an educator exactly good job so this is the framework argument that we talked about that the 2ac needs to argue that you should weigh whether or not the plan is a good idea not whether or not the way we are thinking about criminal justice reform is good or bad so this is just a question should we or should we not pass our policy it's not uh is thinking about our policy bad or is thinking about is the reasons why we say our policy is good is bad or not hey that was that was good um if you want to say let's try to one more example let's try and do the cellular colonialism critique socket what is this first card i'm talking about the law is coercive carceral logics are simple of the subtle colonial state so criminal justice reform the criminal justice system will continue to exterminate and exterminate indigeneity hmm i'm not entirely sure wait so what exactly does that tag say it's yeah so don't ignore the attack i'll read you lines of the evidence if you want state reforms remain built on a logic of elimination of wrongs so dark chapter disconnects them from continued mass incarceration okay so would this be the link exactly good job okay it is arguing that is the link always first no no not not but not by any means but oftentimes it might be the first argument that's presented in the debate because it's the most important right ah okay make sense yeah this is arguing that criminal justice form just makes it seem like oh this is a one-time occurrence uh mass incarceration but in disarguing that this disconnects them from the fact that it's always been like this the very founding of america was based on the logic that we need to get rid of and exterminate native people so this is arguing that it gives legitimacy to the government allows us to distance ourselves from our violent past well we remain inseparably connected to that so uh this piece of evidence also is a component of the link what ben talked about uh does anyone take a shot about what claim it is making what kind of claim is it making aqualon oh sorry i have to go now but um i think it's saying that um it's critiquing like the uh what is it called the is critiquing the policy debate topic because it leads to um inequity or it's the settler communism thinking thing kinda kinda that's a that's a that's a good start uh so this is about subtler colonialism it's arguing that the way the world works this is making a claim that the way the world works is our government and individuals need to exact violence upon indigenous communities and no matter what happens our government will always work towards native dispossession so taking away land from native americans exactly violence upon them etc so these are kind of totalizing claims this is a very totalizing claim it's something we call ontology big word ontology just means the state of being this is making a claim about the way humans exist and the way humans are interacting with each other in the world the arg the claim that this evidence is making is that the way humans are exist in society means that indigenous people and native americans will always be at the bottom of society that they are socially dead because this is this is like very confusing don't worry if you don't understand it right now it's just arguing that a pessimistic claim the world will never get better this is the way it works the people at the bottom um everything a government does will continue that what is this piece of evidence perpetual war uh roh yeah rohan so we initially said that that the affirmative focus like that that the reliance on criminal justice on the criminal justice system is bad because it's like because it relies because because the criminal justice system inherently relies on settlers so the problem with that is that settlers are the ones who induce perpetual war they're the ones who always put themselves first about marginalized minorities and that results in a cycle of violence so what what component of the kate argument oh sorry it's the impact good job yeah you did a good job explaining very simply what the argument is here so plenty on that um syria what is the last bit here what is this oh sorry my bad uh i can't repeat that what component is this last card impact no this card is the impact oh oh like the advocacy the the counter sort of like the counter plane alternative yeah exactly yeah it was cutting out a lot um no problem so this is the alternative is saying that rather than not criminal justice reform we should reject the compromise that is the affirmative and work towards decolonization so give this kid include either like materially giving land back to native people that is how some people want to talk about it like the united states is built upon land still and from indigenous people we should give it back to them instead of allowing corporations to take it over or we should just think about it in a manner that focuses on being less centered on expansion on land etc so these arguments probably don't make a lot of sense to you so because how in the world could a certain group never be helped can things inevitably structure in a way that can't get better so that blows this way to a lot of just two ac responses everything that you talked about for the capitalism critique is also applicable here except for and for the abolition critique except for you probably don't want to go for an impact turn about subtler colonialism is good but you want to phrase it a little bit differently it's a specific policy you pass does help these people and you also really necessarily want to be making the claim responding the ontology argument that means that their claim about how the world will never get better the most important part in this debate essentially will be you need to prove that progress is possible but the world can become a better place you'll read arguments and you have evidence specific to subtle colonialism which authors are arguing that no this binary isn't existent that the world can get better etc so that's just a core argument combined with a permutation a linked turn argument about how the criminal justice system has less control now etc does anyone have any questions now yeah rohan nemai i feel like these critiques feel like they kind of feel kind of generic you know what i mean it's like the seller colonies and uh just like critique doesn't ever like it it just talks about like the criminal justice system in general so doesn't it like doesn't that mean that uh wait but then isn't that kind of bad because it's like just kind of generic or yeah yeah so you make a good observation these are just generally talking about criminal justice reform um but in the debates teams will always come with specific links to the affirmative they're not just going to say criminal only like no good team is going to tell you all criminal justice reform is bad the affirmative is criminal justice reform therefore they're bad that isn't sort of argument they're making they're going to make a detailed explanation of why the specific policy you pass is a characterized by this piece of evidence and well and given their theory of power which they will prove using these species of evidence then that the consequences of pyramid are bad the way you conceptualize things are bad i can give you an example so let's look at the settler colonialism critique and ben uh what f um let's use the mandatory minimums app as an example yeah this mandatory minimum is a primitive so that would abolish all mentoring minimum sentences because they are giving unfair sentences to minorities the affirmative would say that the negative team would say that that is a bad thing not because they always say like you shouldn't vote for the affirmative team you should look for the negative theme you should embrace decolonization because the affirmative team is changing the law which is coercive isn't making just a generic claim but how like a lot like these criminal justice deform is bad that's why therefore the aft is bad is making a claim that abolishing mandatory minimums through the affirmative policy is problematic because a they're construing it as a policy that will help minorities when reality it does not help these very people they seek to help because the prison system is so large ben can probably do a better job explaining the length than i can that it will inevitably gain legitimacy to the government and frames it as this sort of disconnecting it from the actual history of colonialism that means that rather than accepting mandatory minimums as this sort of policy that will help people you should think about it as a policy that will hide the violence that has actually been truly occurring to these very people ben can you explain the link a little bit more yeah so against the specific apps i actually prepped it out um but basically the way we contextualize it to the app is that we actually like re-highlighted pieces of one ac evidence that were like these mandatory minimums would be good it would finally make the criminal justice system the site of justice that we want to be it would remove um it would remove the darkness that is tainting the criminal justice system stuff like that while it sticks to the original argument that uh talia anthony is making about criminal justice it means that you can get very specific to what mandatory minimums are about and about how those actually are that type of criminal justice reform that anthony is critiquing now it's a really long explanation but the one thing you want to keep in mind is that yes the 1nc shell will usually be generic and then during the block when they have time to explain everything they'll ditch some of the some of the jargon like carceral logics or a sim symptom of a subtler colonialist state and actually explain the argument more explain the link more yeah so really common that makes sense is bringing back lines of when you see evidence because you aren't isn't necessarily the criminal justice reform is bad you obviously have to win that the affirmative specifically is bad okay so long meeting today but um cases are confusing it's something that it would take hours to really get through so if anyone has any questions some of us will uh feel free to message us actually and we'll get back as soon as possible any question at all would be okay even if it's anything this isn't just to feel free to question uh uh send us a question it's we implore you you must ask us a question if you're not sure this made absolutely no sense to me when i was a freshman so and i know if i hadn't asked questions i would have no idea what was going on so if you have if you have any doubt in your mind which i think every single one of you probably does i expect i'm expecting seven messages to at least to at least one of us whether it be to ben a kill or me so get get started on thinking about those questions what you still have in mind maybe you can come back to this in a couple hours or tomorrow and oh i don't remember what this is i'm confused about this so yeah make sure you come and ask us questions all right yeah thanks everyone for sticking back yeah yeah see you know this is a lot to unpack see ya thank you thank you thank you thank you