Adapting to your judge

First, always keep tabs on why you won or lost your match so you know what the judge is likely to vote on in the future.

Technique over truth

Even if the judge doesn’t like what you said, maybe they don’t like K debaters, you should argue that you have won the debate based on technically by out debating the other team, having a better overview and evidence comparison will cause judges that don’t normally vote K to support you

Debate K like a disadvantage

1. Links to the actions of the plan ✨ Most important
2. Links to rhetoric
3. Links to assumptions the affirmative makes
4. Links to the ideology of the AFF

When you are running the K like a disadvantage, you want to link the actions of the plan to your kritik, that way policy judges are more likely to vote with you.

Going for the K

1. We should reorient the way we think and reject the ethics of the other team
2. Alternatives that are pragmatic, or do something better

<aside> <img src="/icons/link_red.svg" alt="/icons/link_red.svg" width="40px" /> Lay judges (such as parents) may not understand K, especially if the affirmative team wants to go for a permutation, so you need to clearly explain what your links are and why the perm fails

</aside>

Explaining your K

• Make sure you explain your K in cross exams
  • Judges hate K teams that simply restate tags or don’t expand on why they think the way they do,
• Clearly explain your kritik early on so it’s clear what you’re going for

Avoid a generic K

• Many Kritiks are generic to the topic or valid for the whole year, you should be able to tear apart the AFF relative to your plan instead of keeping things simple