K Lecture Notes

-Novel cases questioning assumptions in other philosophies, ie free will, interaction of morals, subjectivity -Often difficult to understand - Ks often are about descriptive qualities - ends based consequences that are amplified - generally politically extreme, left-wing - usually not that specific to topic big ideas ie colonialism, racism, patriarchy! - project "use- lots of critical authors, must be well read on boo#s, $outledge critical thin#ers %ic plan inclusive counterplan -Normal &'( structure - can be offense for ac)nc, but can rely on a traditional standard - strategically limit the round to your particular critical standard *+ ,enerally &ritical patriarchy,racism, etc a+ (e patricarchy - #ant self-contraditory, the opponent should point it out .+ %(K/ plan inclusive critiques)floating critique we should do the aff, minus some bad thing i+ $ep K ie the aff does a bad representation of 0victim,1 so vote down ii+ ,enerally pre-fiat on a higher level, comes before substance necessary b)c it obscures the meaning of the res, we must care about our actions and intents before the rest, 2must warrant why it comes first34 iii+ 0"icro-political1 iv+ 5he role of the ballot the judges obligation to endorse the least sexist, 2warrant why different from just prefiat4 &+ 6ramewor# K attac#ing the assumptions)meta-e in their framewor# i+ &an usually be analytic ii+ 7in# turn to standard the proposed action actually does the opposite action in regard to the standard substantive level iii+ "ade competitive by alternative iv+ &an either have some prior metric ie ontology that lets us evaluate the value of the 6' why do we care about these particular ethical system, v+ &an lin# to resolution or aff-dependent generates offesnse spec from a lin# to *& best to have both 8+ 7in# to something the *66 did or the wording of the *& and why its bad a+ (e the aff labels as victims, uses victim cards, specific political purposes)rhetoric)effect on thin#ing b+ .9 /%9&(6(& ie in how they are using the word victim c+ "ust explain why the aff did the action or how they did the act, ie why they called them victims and how it was offensive

d+ :ont commit equivocation use different connotations of words to twist the meaning, ie ( have a heavy heart e+ "ust be able to explain why you lin# and how exactly their interpretation is flawed ;+ (mpact why its bad a+ *ppeals to some fw, ie leads to dehumani<ation b+ 'hy the practice is bad)good must lin# it to some decision calculus c+ One way is to turn the *66 case on the ac standard the aff action ma#es the problem worse by their own standard d+ $oot cause claim patriarchy is the root cause of all evil, so solving patriarchy is the biggest impact ever+ 2*5 usually non-unique arg, because uniqueness overcomes the lin#, the prob is so entrenched you cant solve4 e+ 5he more extreme the claim, the less probable =+ *lternative judge should do this instead, a+ 'hy voting for me solves the impact or is comparatively better than voting for my opponent b+ /ubstantive difference between N9, and *66 world c+ "ust recommend some #ind of action d+ &ould be reject aff, different path of action, do nothing, but requires really specific warrants e+ "ust prove why doing a certain action will solve the impacts *5 Ks - "ust be well-read, dont be intimidated by strange arguments - >se &? to show that your opponent doesnt understand the argument 2and that you want to understand it4 - .rea# their lin# chain identify all the lin#s+ 7ist out these lin#s during rebuttals and attac# them, ma#ing clear the N9, has to win all these lin#s - @uestion what the impact appeals to - ,oing further left ie patriarchy should be expanded not only to men)women, but also 7,.5+ 5hey fail to solve, still causing the negative impacts+ &laim the more extreme ground - %ermutations question if there is a difference between aff and neg worlds the *66 world can accept the N9, world+ .asically saying not all parts N9, alternative is competitive+ o :ont say victim any more but still do the aff+ - $ussels paradox a set that contains all sets that dont contain themselves selfundermining o $eject all normative prescriptions

o *ll statements are false @uestion the exact warrants in the cards, not just the tags

%re-round read a lot , build confidence, so you can understand more than the opponent /tanford 9ncyclopedia is a great place to read get some quic# understanding minus the jargon+ *aaaarg+org free online boo#s-illegal &asewi#i can see how specific args being run and see common positions)cards Know the most common philosophers, esp primary sources Nietch<e, butler, wendy brown, deridia, buli<engetari, ji<he#, Know the opponent they have the burden to explain the complex stuff to the judge *s# around to hear what tric#y stuff is being run, as# intelligent people Know the judge a lot dont li#e ./ and gives you a lot of leeway $ead paradigms3 (f they have read, theyre more li#ely to vote off K $ound all args must have a &'(, else it doesnt matter at all "ust be topical mentally search for lin#s to resolution 5here is a magic bullet for every case3 5hey must prove that you somehow cause the bad impact Aas to have some form of evaluative mechanism, or else it will be my standard (f they cant show why we care about the impact, its totally irrelevant (6 they are lin#ing to your standard, then critici<ing it, then they cant win 5hey have certain assumptions about judge roles 5hey are unli#ely to really justify thousands of pages of literature %oint out gaps in the args N99: *N *759$N*5(B9 5A*5 *BO(:/ 5A9 ("%*&5 O$ 97/9 5A9$9 (/ NO $9*/ON 5O %$969$ 5A9($ 'O$7: - if the impact is unavoidable, its non-unique and they have no offense &? is your friend3 (solate lin# story and figure out which lin#s they must win .e dominant "ischaracteri<e their position to be easier, "oc# their rhetoric they often ma#e up words to sound smart, but they dont understand ,ives the judge an out to vote the other way b)c they dont undersrtand ,enerate tons of non-responsive args eats up their time to explain in rebuttal 9xposes their own misunderstandings N