8/12/2019 Theory K

1/3

8/12/2019 Theory K

2/3

destroys the affirmatives education because then theyll learn that

anytime something good is created, it can easily be destroyed by a

ridiculous argument.

Voters- rather than voting for the team that is going to show you some problem

that will be found with every plan, vote for the team that does the best at

bringing logical arguments, and in this case, that would be the affirmative team.

Teach the negative a lesson by rejecting their Kritik and voting for the

Affirmative. This will teach both teams a lesson and is extremely valuable.

As a judge, you are also a teacher. A teacher wouldnt allow (his or her)

students to be destroyed in their education by giving ridiculousness an A and

gold an F. as a teacher, you have a moral obligation to vote for the affirmative

team to take a stand in the fight against ridiculous Kritiks.

8/12/2019 Theory K

3/3

Extensions on K theory

A2 stupidityThe opposition calls this theory stupid, however, if you want to know what would be

stupid, that would be the Kritique. A Kritik as we explained isnt a voting issue because the

Negative is simply using it to exploit the affirmatives ideologies that dont connect on a physical

and direct level. All Ks prove is that no matter how great something is, there will always be

some ridiculous idea that disagrees with it. Take the Feminism Kritik for example. This is saying

that we are pretty much being sexist; however, this is simply used as a time suck argument.

They dont actually do anything more than point out something that is found everywhere. Take

the Racism Kritik for example as in this. This says that the Affirmative team is using racist terms,

and you the judge should vote them down for it to take a stand against racism. Well fine, take

the stand. Itll still be there. A small debate round wont have the impact of the world on its sideenough to fully stop racism. A signature on a piece of paper isnt going to show the backwoods

grandpa that being black isnt wrong. Kritiks are used as a time suck argument simply meant to

exploit the affirmatives ideals. This debate round needs to be voted on what is found to have

the most impact on the physical level. Voting for something that wont solve such as the racism

Kritik, where racism will still exist no matter what you put on that ballot, shouldnt be held as

high as the physical impacts such as .

Our procedures are still on grounds that they are coming into the round with whatever they

want and call it a Kritik, and the affirmative team will lose their grounds because the negative

team can take a problem with society and churn it up until it turns into a hot buttery mess. On

the education, judge, as a judge you are also a teacher. The opposition, if they win, will walk out

of this round believing that they can run anything they want as negative, and still win on it. And

that will also teach the affirmative team that anything they could possibly come up with as an

affirmative plan can be voted down upon by made up mind impacts rather than physical issues

first. Not only that, but this would also teach the affirmative that whenever they are negative,

they can run Kritiks too and win on them.