Choosing advantages plays an important role in affirmative kritik strategy, but too often debaters make these choices on the fly before debates trying to figure out what they need to take out of the 1AC instead of having reasons for why something is in the 1AC. Most policy affirmatives draw from conventional reasons for their advantages. Often, the reasons for advocacy in particular terms (i.e. terrorism, economic growth, and environmental improvement) have as much to do with the political and media constraints on existing policy advocacy as they do detailed analysis of effects. While this is obvious in the use of evidence from particularly interested sources (i.e. industry interest/lobbying groups) it may be less obvious (in individual debates) in circumstances where larger social changes and structures bring certain issues into focus. Fifteen years ago it was difficult to find people making connections between many policy areas and terrorism, now it would be difficult to avoid them. Affirmative advocacies are both of our own making and not. In addition to the constraints of the resolution, our evidence driven activity follows the avenues provided in academic and policy literature. Most of the important discursive or representational kritiks in our activity raise questions about what enables the production of affirmatives that follow these well-trod paths for advocacy. Knowing that the reasons particular advantage ground exists in evidentiary terms are often political, ideological, or rhetorical affirmatives shouldn’t be surprised/frustrated by the existence of representational kritiks that ask what structures, values, or institutions produce these connections/contraints. FIAT as a technique for assessment encourages affirmatives to ignore this constitutive role of advantage choice. When constructing a 1AC with some options against these kritiks ask yourself not only why we should do the plan but why we should advocate the plan for particular reasons. Affirmatives who believe “should” falls entirely on the side of the plan while advantage arguments involve only “would” rob themselves of responses to representational kritiks that do not require winning that discourse/representations have no constitutive effects. Most advocacy strategies make sense only in a particular political context. Even if such a political context is, in part, constituted by an affirmative, crafting a 1AC with this in mind means an affirmative can provide reasons for responding within the constraints of existing discourse. Rather than trying to win that discourse/representations/language (all different, but in these debates usually treated the same) are irrelevant, affirmatives should defend the importance of responding from within a particular discourse/set of representations. Negative alternatives in this area are usually couched in purely negative terms (i.e. don’t endorse X discourse or representation). The most difficult task in dealing with the importance of discourses in policy formation is finding something that might be able to “unstick” a particular frame. Aff complaints about how the negative does nothing to address this question are much less persuasive if the aff hasn’t chosen carefully. First, if link/internal claims are tenuous or haphazard it’s much easier to explain what “unsticking” might entail. For example, there are a variety of approaches to agricultural policy that don’t raise the question of agro-terrorism (attack inevitable within 6 months!) but fewer ways to imagine persuasion on immigration that doesn’t involve discussion of economic effects. Another example--we can imagine making the case for the economic benefits of a more permissive immigration policy without saying competitiveness is key to lock in US military dominance. Second, permutations make sense if we stop approaching these questions in binary terms. In the economics example, it’s easier to explain we should move towards a less-economically dominated discussion of immigration policy but acknowledge the constraints on alternatives (social justice, cosmopolitan ethics, or anti-racism) when the strength of the neg’s internal link is much weaker. Link yes/no is much less relevant in these situations than the importance or credibility of a link-internal link combination. Consider a COIN bad affirmative from this year’s high school topic. Many of these affirmatives read hegemony advantages. With that advantage, the negative’s internal arguments and answers to a permutation are much easier. Without that advantage, the neg is forced to make cooptation claims against a permutation. Those arguments make the alternative much more difficult to explain. A permutation without the leadership advantage can draw on a) it’s difficult to avoid discussions of security/nation-state etc. altogether and coherently address the problems of COIN in a manner that can force an institutional response b) criticism of the terms/frame of national security as an ideology are compatible with pointing out its contradictions on display in Afghanistan. The negative’s claim that security produces insecurity can be used to explain the aff advantage without a terminal leadership impact. Remember, your aff may contain criticism of other frames/discourses, and this may be offense against an alternative that is purely negative. In the economy-immigration example, an alternative that is phrased in purely negative terms may make it much more difficult to defeat xenophobic or nationalist arguments. This option disappears when the aff decides to mix-and-match the underlying ideological/value commitments of 1AC advantages. Impact diversity implicitly assists the negative in a) pointing out other options were available for the aff/there is a substantial element of choice in this 1AC b) using evidence that suggests that an impact reflects political expediency/ideology and isn’t credible. Type of News/Audience: UGA Debate
