Kicking+Args


 * Kicking out of arguments:**

Does it get you anything to kick it? Was there a strategic concession? If you are doing it to save time, can you kick it in less time than just shadow extending it OR even covering it well?
 * 1: Decide if you are going to kick it and why. Do you need to do it strategically?**

To decide what to go for and what to kick, you have to know what is offensive and what is defensive.

What is offense? How can we tell what it is in debates? How can we tell if it isn’t labeled “turn”? What are levels of offense?
 * 2. Offense and defense: how can we tell the difference?**

Activity:

Example #1: Which of these is offense on the politics DA? A. Turn: Obama’s agenda kills heg B. No link: Obama doesn’t push plan C. Turn: Plan saves Obama’s political capital D. Intrinsicness: You can do the plan and push Obama’s agenda

Example #2: Which of these is offense against an economy DA? A. Economic growth doesn’t solve war B. Stimulus solves economic growth C. Government spending is increasing now D. Plan helps the economy AND the economy is down now

Example #3: Which of these is offense against a CP? A. Permute: do both B. Solvency deficit C. Conditionality bad D. The CP is being done in the status quo

Example #1: Kicking a DA:
 * 3. Kicking substance (DA, Advantage, turns—including impact turns to DA’s)- identify where the offense is and whether there is a straight turn**

A. The DA is Politics- Iraq pullout good with terrorism impact

2AC says: 1. NU: Iraq pullout now 2. No impact to terrorism: can’t build weapons 3. Iraq pullout is bad: economy 4. Iraq pullout is bad: hegemony 5. Iraq pullout can’t solve terrorism 6. Terrorism is inevitable because of the overall war on terror and anti-Americanism that Iraq pullout doesn’t address 7. No link: Obama doesn’t push the plan

B. The DA is Allied Prolif with prolif bad/war impact

2AC says: 1. Allies are proliferating now 2. No impact to prolif- not destabilizing 3. Other factors make prolif inevitable 4. Plan solves prolif by sending signal of resolve and hegemony 5. Other countries don’t perceive the plan as reneging on a security guarantee

C. The DA is Obama agenda good

2AC says: 1. NU: Agenda won’t pass now 2. Turn: plan increases bipart, leads to passage 3. Obama not key to x agenda item 4. Turn: plan increases Obama’s political capital 5. Plan is at the bottom of the docket 6. Obama agenda doesn’t solve the impact

D. The Advantage is hegemony

1NC says: 1. Heg collapse inevitable – overstretch 2. Heg increases resentment and anti-Americanism 3. Heg doesn’t solve terrorism 4. Heg doesn’t deter war 5. American imperialism is bad because it leads to genocide 6. Plan doesn’t solve heg

E. The neg reads an Iraq pullout bad DA

One of the 2AC answers is that Iraq pullout is good because it frees up troops for other places which solves overstretch and heg

2NC says: 1. No evidence you’d free up enough troops 2. Freeing up troops sends them to Afghanistan, which causes accidental war between India and Pakistan 3. Pulling out of Iraq collapses heg- the impact is all wars and prolif and terrorism 4. Longterm pullout is inevitable but short term pullout leads to Iraqi instability – impact is terrorism and extinction


 * 4. Kicking Advocacies (CP, kritik alternative)**

A. Neg reads Consult NATO CP

2AC says: 1. Perm: do both 2. Perm: do the CP 3. NATO says no 4. US-NATO relations are bad- prolongs Afghanistan war 5. 1 instance of consultation doesn’t solve

B. Neg reads CP to have Canada send peacekeepers to Iraq and says this solves overstretch. The net benefit is politics.

2AC says: 1. Perm: do both 2. No impact to overstretch 3. Doesn’t solve the case- pulling out troops is key 4. Links to politics because Obama would have to get involved in the transfer of troops to Iraq even from other countries 5. CP overstretches Canadian peacekeepers, which are key to stability in Quebec

C. Neg reads a kritik of terrorism discourse in the 1AC

2AC says: 1. Perm: do plan and reject discourse 2. Framework: can only vote on policy impacts not language 3. Terrorism discourse is key to fighting the war on terror. The impact is terrorism and extinction. 4. Discourse doesn’t shape reality

Debate is about picking tie breakers based on the nexus question and winning them
 * 5. Deciding when to kick out of arguments**

Risk assessment—being honest with yourself about whether you are winning something or not Example: If you shadow extended T in the block and the 1AR only textended a WM and Counterinterpretation on it, do you go for it? -Depends on judge, and whether you are winning the rest of your strategy

Example: If you read theory on a CP and you think the neg does a bad job of answering it, do you go for it when you have other stuff to go for? How do you decide whether it is worth it?

Example: If you are reading a politics DA and the aff conceded a bunch of links to it, but the impact to the DA is small compared to the aff advantages, and you don’t have a lot on the aff advantages, what kind of shape are you in?

Example: If you are reading the politics DA and the aff has two link turns that they read (with a lot of evidence in the 1AR) and you have a bunch of link args and answers to all of their stuff, who is winning the higher risk of the link? And if the risk is the same, what are other tie breakers?

Usually in 2NR -Undercovered arguments -Making a judgment about whether you are actually winning something or not

In the 1AR, you have to narrow down

In 2AR, you should not be going for everything. You have to take a dropped arg OR an arg you are winning a substantial risk of and make it work for you.