A/T Kritiks

A. Interpretation: Burdens should be reciprocal, so negatives must actively prove the converse of the resolution
through a counter-advocacy.
B. Violation: The negative does not negate the text of the resolution, but simply offers disadvantages of [ ].
C. Standards:
1. Time-Skew: The K skews prep time because it takes much less time to link a criticism to an
argument compared to responding to the specific warrants. Thus the NR gets virtually 100% of prep
time, while I have to more equitably divide my prep because I have to refute all arguments. Also, the
neg skews my 1AR prep and speech time on an issue that I cant win off of. If I just prove [my
epistemology is sound/not oppressive], I dont necessarily win.
2. Ground: kritiks explode neg ground because a. they can pick any problematic assumption or
mentality that affirming entails, whereas the aff has to prove the text of the resolution. This grants
them infinite ground because no epistemology is perfect. Its easier to deny somethings
assumptions than to prove it true. [b. They do not have to actively prove a statement true. Allowing
the neg to choose anything that contradicts the aff means Ks skew ground because they isolate one
part of the case thats bad, while I have to prove every level of the resolution true. c. the neg must
demonstrate a clear alternative because else they garner a severe advantage because it is easier to
think of a generic denial of a statement rather than actually refute it.]Ground is key to fairness
because an unequal distribution of ground structurally ensures one side better access to the truth of
the resolution. Even if the topic might always skew ground, minimizing that ground skew is always
preferable.
3. Predictability because this justifies running an infinite variety of criticisms because the time used to
answer the argument will always exceed time needed to make it. That means affs would never be
able to predict the infinite variety of metaphysical or linguistic assumptions behind affirming to be
able to answer the K. Predictability is key to fairness because they have infinite preround prep time
to develop their arguments so I need to be able to reasonably predict them in order to engage them in
any real sense.
Also, the aff has to prove the resolution, which means they gain an advantage in pre-round prep
because they can estimate more about what my case would say based upon commonalities in topical
aff args. If any random criticism is sufficient, I cant research or prep as much because the
arguments are less predictable.
4. Reciprocal Burdens-

(__) The negatives advocacy of something other than the negative fiat world and it furthering of
some 3rd option violates reciprocal burdens because I cant just pick a random 3rd option
(__) I cant avoid linking to this kritik IF YOU ACCEPT THE LOGIC OF THE LINK
ANALYSIS because [
]
(__)The kritik places the judge in a Catch 22. Either the judge can vote for what the kritik wants
them to believe in and consider before the debate, which would be unfair, or vote for what the
judge doesnt believe, which trivializes the discourse.
D. Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a competition which therefore needs to be constrained by
rules as people only compete with the understanding they have an equal chance of winning, meaning once a rule
is broken the abuse happens. Further, it precedes an accurate evaluation of the resolution you must first ensure
the debate is fair to evaluate anything post-theory since that evaluation of the round will always be skewed
towards the unfair debater.

A/T Kritiks
The alternative doesnt solve it prevents us from solving.
1) Empirically denied. Debaters have been making arguments for years, and it hasnt had any real world impacts.
Tons of people have run the exact same Kritik, and the problem still exists. This puts her in a double bind
because if the Kritik actually works, then previous debate rounds would have solved the problem and this round
is now irrelevant.
2) Debate itself has no political impact. Political leaders barely listen to academics, much less high school kids.
My opponent must prove EXPLICIT causal story (ballot to tab to) in order to justify a ballot.
3) TURN- Because debaters want to win, running a performance will merely cause people to prepare responses to
beat it. Thus, my opponent is increasing opposition to the movement rather than getting support.
4) TURN- Voting for the performance would give debaters a chance to feel like theyre resisting the system when
in their everyday lives they continue to reify it [ex- criticize capitalism while typing cases on a laptop]. It
allows them to delude themselves into thinking that theyre resisting sufficiently. This outweighs their real
world impacts because it prevents real advocacy in meaningful forums.
Reject- sincerity
5) Reject the criticism because its a tool for self interest. Theyre debating the other side half the time, which
makes their advocacy insincere. Sincerity is integral for the effectiveness of speech acts- for example, marriage
vow in a play is diff than a real one.
6) If the criticism is sincere, my opponent would be willing to take a loss to show she doesnt care about
the win as much as the movement. To do otherwise would be to unnecessarily punish me for having the
bad luck to be in the same round as a political movement.
Forum
7) This is the wrong forum. Debate is a game involving judges, trophies, and time limits, not the starting point for
a movement. Just as we dont have to dedicate every second of our lives to charity work, we dont have to
interrupt our game for real political advocacy.
8) Perm- vote for me for because Im winning substantive issues, then we can stop round and go out and tell
everyone about your advocacy. This will gets more performance, because we can address more people than the
people in this room, and more people will hear about it because its even more unconventional than my
opponents criticism.
Abusive
9) Performance is theoretically illegitimate because it invites judge subjectivity. Performances ask judges to make
a real-world endorsement, appealing to their personal beliefs instead of asking for an objective decision.
10) This is abusive because I as a debater have to argue against a position even if I endorse it. Its not fair to force
me to decide between remaining true to my own ideals and fulfilling my role as a debater.
11) Skews negative strategy because it forces me the debate onto a few levels that she is easily able to predict. This
allows her to prepare arguments before the round, but denies me an equal chance to prep. / Skews aff strategy
because it neutralizes my AC. I just wasted six minutes of time and my AR options are limited to theory or to
debating the real-world implications.
Sorry
12) I'm sorry if I accidentally ********, it was completely unintentional, and Ill make an effort to avoid
**** in the future. The notion in the Kritik that language shapes reality applies just as much to this
apology as it does to my original rhetoric. If (s/he) claims the apology doesn't work, then there is no
alternative to the Kritik, because violators will always be violators and are given no avenue for change.