You are on page 1of 2


Nate Cohn

• AT: K
o K teams can win while not contesting the case
o K teams can only win if they render the aff irrelevant
 Aff wins if aff is still relevant
o Can approach aff from numerous philosophical points
 Explodes literature – difficult for aff to target
o How to think about kritiks
 Consider them in terms of different approaches
 K has to have a link
 Think of Ks as the elements of the case that it kritiks
 Undermine utility of ethics of aff plan
 Criticize ability to predict the future, ideology, trying to change the world, etc.
 Kritiks of fiat – normativity , k of power structures – Foucault, Agamben , k of cap
 Reps K – contend something aff is engaged in
 Structures plan relies on
o How Ks win
 Alternative – solves/turns case, etc
 Prima facie issue, ethical obligation – value to life
 Role of ballot framework – weigh K first, don’t look at case
• X comes first arguments
o How aff wins
 Defense of K thesis
 Answers to alt
 Answers to turns-case
 Impact calc – consequentalism good, extinction o/w
 Topic-specific kritiks become more relevant
o How to beat turns case
 2 reasons k turns case
• Root cause
• Analytical DAs – K shows aff is not true – threats based off x school of thought
o Neg reexplains the affirmative using K ideology, shows how aff is wrong
 Explain their reexplanation, show how aff solves
 Know the K literature/language
 Something else comes first
o The security dilemma
 Each state fight for their own interests
 Key realist assumption is that states are unitary and rational actors defined by their military
o ontology – study of being, epistemology – study of how we gain knowledge
o Discourse – representations come first
 Representations shape policy making

o Wendt – horrible book?
o Assumptions are presumably accurate – alt fails
o Bring back case, use it against the K