WORD PIKS

Nick Rogan

• Position like a DA to the word

• Replace word in the CP
o More neutral terms – withstands a perm
• Have a longer version when writing your file
o Don’t result to one-card shells, arguments
• Read multiple impact cards
• 1NC construction
o Choosing your alternative term
 Be strategic
 ie. regional names

• Indict euphemisms
• Stories
o Word PIKs can kill
o Africa college topic
o Concept of horn of Africa racist – barbaric term
o Can embarrass/crush good teams on it
• Key 2NC blocks
o Impact calc block for the DA
o Kritik overview
o Include various alt terms
o Block to at least two perm arguments – censoring locks in bad term
o Answer PIKs bad
o Answer aff offense, redeployment, butler (censoring bad)
 Butler not applicable – neg doesn’t censor
• Favor policy with better phrasing
 Aff compares PIK to punishment for a word
• Neg just trying to choose the best policy – not censorship
• We say the word too when we highlight its flaws
 AT: we redeploy the term
• They don’t
• Tie to 1AC context – not difference from past
• Not up to US policymakers to redefine African context
• Depends on social situation – ethos to redeploy
• Theory
o Word PIKs good –
o Narrowing the debate good
o Net benefit proves level of impact
o Enough literature
o Make fun of analytics
 Research/ cards o/w
 Representation o/w fairness

o Counter-interpretation
 Aff gets to control what is competitive – they choose their plan text
 Means they failed at writing plan text wrong
 = better plan text for aff, learn to not lose again = better debates
 Aff controls what is competitive to their
  PIKs key to neg Ground
 Don’t let them whine just because they have a bad plan text and debating was hard
• You should never lose the fairness debate – aff has a plan, they have to defend it
• Teams have to be held responsible for decisions they make while constructing their
affirmatives
 DAs solve – not applicable, tests opportunity cost / CP ground good
• DAs don’t solve – we wouldn’t win if we just had DAs, should be allowed to propose
alternative
 Essential educational function
 Makes aff responsible
 Rhetoric and language matter – helps shape theoretical debate
 Best policy option – key to policy education
 Aff-side bias
 Good cards to answer perm do both
 Isolate functional difference between plan and CP
 Solvency deficit on replacement term
 If they have good offense on their term,
o Solvency advocate
 PICs have to have solvency advocate –DHeidt
 Limits out trivial CPs
 Competing literature exists for everything
 Word PICs solve predictability
• The word is in their plan text – have to be able to defend
• Aff should be prepared to defend the word in their plan text
 Assumption of solvency advocate – means we can’t think for ourselves (have to regurgitate
published ev)
 Should be an argument on the CP, not a theory argument
 Solvency advocates are arbitrary
• Trades off with actual debate – debate about arbitray value of arg, not the actual arg
• Self-serving ways for the aff to limit options they are losing on
• Regresses to the point where no CPs would be allowed
• Aff against word PICs
o make blocks specific to each arg
o work PIC bad theory not very good – make it persuasive
 only go for in front of specific judges
 change your plan – a lot
• randomly changing words – make sure you have defense
 include resilient strategy
o Theory
 PICs bad
 Solvency advocate
o Replacement terms bad – have ev on either way
o Perm: do both – most of the time it can solve the NB
o Aff impact turns the PIK
•