Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimpeterson

Discursive advantages & PICs

Recommended Posts

I don't think I understand the question. A PIC has to have a net benefit (which can be either a discursive or policy impact), so it'll always solve something beyond the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just lost a round to a team claiming that their PIC solved for a discursive advantage of our aff. Is this legit? Doesn't the CP only solve the plan text?

 

I don't know what you are talking about, but my guess is something like...

you ran an aff and said something like "because we brought up aids in this debate round we are already solving it via education in round blah blah or whatever" hence a discursive aids advantage

then the neg ran a PIC, with a NB, but also claimed to be solving aids?

i don't see what isn't legit about it...... but i could be completely wrong about the type of scenario you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's theoretically illegitimate, but I don't think their solvency claims are necessarily true. Some argument ideas:

 

1) The PIC dilutes the meaning of the plan. The intent of the plan is to solve AIDS or whatever, the intent of the counterplan is to avoid linking to an unrelated net-benefit.

 

2) Solvency deficit to the PIC means they link harder to our discursive advantage. They propose a policy that is a flawed method of solving AIDS - flawed discourse means the harms are irreparably reproduced if the neg's discourse is legitimated

 

3) Discourse is less effective the second time around. When people tell a joke, it's only funny the first time - the PIC may copy aff discourse in that it endorses most of the plan but it doesn't take a firm stance in the same way that our 1AC does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand about the way you presented it, it is legit. If your advantage stems off of what you say in the round, then whats to stop the neg (assuming they don't PIC out of it, or advocate something contradictory) from using the same discourse and claiming the same advantage as your aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just lost a round to a team claiming that their PIC solved for a discursive advantage of our aff. Is this legit? Doesn't the CP only solve the plan text?

 

It's as legitimate as you let it be.

 

Some tips for tackling these types of arguments:

 

1 - Severance perm. If the NB is solely that the part of plan they're PICing out of is bad (e.g. racist, colonialist, etc.), you can say that the severance permutation is, in affect, an embracement of the system but not necessarily the systems ills (there is some Foucault 77 ev that says we can embrace gov't structures w/o embracing its ideologies). This will operate under their discursive framework better than their CP, especially since the CP is still operating in a fiat framework that, albeit some silly "your plan is racist/uses the state" links, isn't really accessing any form of discursive impacts.

 

2 - PIC doesn't access a K of reps. If the NB is a K of the representations of the 1AC, explain how the CP links back to those reps/doesn't solve for them. For instance, if their K is saying your representations/framing of HIV is bad, and they remove all parts of plan dealing with HIV, just explain how advocating non-HIV policy isn't solving for your speech act.

 

3 - Framework. If they want to say that the discursive nature of the NB supercedes policy debate, grant this to them and engage them in their ontological discussion. If there are actual discoursive implications to the advocation of certain parts of the PIC/Plan, then you should be winning the round if you win that those reps are good. Even if they win that their PIC solves all of case and avoids the NB, the PIC isn't relevant in a world in which your questioning representations - you can tie this in with your permutation as well by claiming that since the NB is a question of representations, the policy implications outside of the scope of the K become irrelevant - case is moot and it's about the K.

 

4 - Treat it like a PIC. How would you normally answer a policy-oriented PIC? Generally, a team would run PICs bad/impact turn the NB/solvency deficits. Do the same here. Say that their advocacy is bad because it's unpredictable/debate key to solving bad discourse, say your discourse is good, and that that discourse is key to solving case.

 

5 - Policymaking good. If you win that the discourse shouldn't be evaluated, 99% of the offense of such NB's goes away. At that point, you're weighing the mere possibility of the impacts happening vs. advantages to plan - if you win policymaking good, then you just need to articulate why the portion they PIC out of hinders solvency for a huge plan advantage and why that advantage outweighs the impact.

 

I think the biggie is to find out *what* they're kritiking with the NB. If they're kritiking your representations, then the PIC is really just a set of smoke and mirrors to take you away from answering the real argument that will decide the round: the K. If it just says advocating x policy option is bad, impact turn it and say why it's good. Also, don't be afraid to say that advocating that part of plan is a good act too (you can go about this multiple ways, either that it's just good overall impact wise, you're advocating it as a means and not an ends, etc.) Some people will K certain things as being imperialist - you can say you intentionally use that discourse to lead to further action, etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...