Jump to content
Kei

Critical Aff

Recommended Posts

How exactly does a critical aff work? I'm trying to write one, but i don't want to screw it up.

Is it possible to have both a critical advantage and a policy advantage?

Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/search.php

 

You'll run into interesting threads such as:

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=947571

 

And:

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=972244

 

Among others.

 

To answer your question of:

 

Is it possible to have both a critical advantage and a policy advantage?

Thanks

 

Yes. For example, say you are running a Child Soldiers Aff. You can claim, in addition to hegemony, structural violence as an advantage.

 

If you want to make any advantage critical, just throw on a card or two from this file:

 

http://www.sendspace.com/file/l88z7a

 

Plenty of critical cards to get you started.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen many affs that have claimed both critical(deontological) impacts and normal impacts you would see on any policy case. This year for my first case I'm going to claim a heg advantage and a racism advantage. I'm running immunizations, and to claim racism I'm going to say that disease fuels racism. This is true because we seperate sick people from the normal community, and there are wars/genocide to get these. Not only is racism a deontological impact, but there are also some good cards out there saying it leads to racism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are some reasons fiat is good/bad

 

Fiat isn't bad. Any reasons why we shouldn't look at the hypothetical constructed world of the AFF (ie, fiat) should be specific to the criticism you're running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the links and understand this.

Im trying to figure out now how to set up a framework. How should the judge vote. Does the policy advantage come before a critical advantage, or vice-versa? Can they be worked out as the same level of importance? What would be the best framework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well on some kritial affs when they say fiat bad i was wondering waht are some reasons it good.

 

well that seems to me that it would be bad for them if they claim fiat bad. they can only claim critical advantages from usfg action, because that's all that fiat grats them. If they have both advantages from their policy and from their non-fiat world they create, you should argue-

 

interpretation-the affirmative can only claim advantages that spur from fiated usfg action

 

here are some reasons this is bad:

 

multiple affirmative worlds bad- they steal negative kritik ground by claiming they are the alternative

 

limits-our interpretation for debate is best, if the aff can claim critical advantages that aren't directly linked to fiated usfg action, they have unfair access to a nearly limitless amount of advantages

 

voters for strategic equity and fairness

 

you could throw education, if the negative can't run the arguments they are most knowledgable about, we can't get into in depth arguments which is the best education, make sure you impact education or it's meaningless (education is a fairly common standard, you should try to think of something else though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the links and understand this.

Im trying to figure out now how to set up a framework. How should the judge vote. Does the policy advantage come before a critical advantage, or vice-versa? Can they be worked out as the same level of importance? What would be the best framework?

 

on your critical aff, you should argue the deontological impacts from the critical part of case. this normally will be a moral imparative which if it's good should have a no value to life card. if there's no value to life until post-plan there's no reason to vote on negative impacts presented by disads/kritiks/cp or anything else. unless they can prove you undoubtedly can't solve for the critical advantages, or their counter-plan solves no value to life better, you should win. most people will say that because you don't solve, you can't claim your advantages. BUT, your critical advantages probably don't hinge on solvency. Fiat will grant you can atleast act, which action is usually all that is key in this case.

 

I would say your policy advantages would be a back up more or less. It's good to have atleast one extinction scenario so you can weigh that in case the judge isn't buying your no value to life.

 

Do you need help writing the framework?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well that seems to me that it would be bad for them if they claim fiat bad. they can only claim critical advantages from usfg action, because that's all that fiat grats them. If they have both advantages from their policy and from their non-fiat world they create, you should argue-

 

interpretation-the affirmative can only claim advantages that spur from fiated usfg action

 

here are some reasons this is bad:

 

multiple affirmative worlds bad- they steal negative kritik ground by claiming they are the alternative

 

limits-our interpretation for debate is best, if the aff can claim critical advantages that aren't directly linked to fiated usfg action, they have unfair access to a nearly limitless amount of advantages

 

voters for strategic equity and fairness

 

you could throw education, if the negative can't run the arguments they are most knowledgable about, we can't get into in depth arguments which is the best education, make sure you impact education or it's meaningless (education is a fairly common standard, you should try to think of something else though)

 

thx

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the framework is how to make it that the policy sphere is more important, yet i can still access my discursive advantage. The critical advantage is not the premise of the case, but it does fit in with the whole thing.

I don't have a deontological fw to work with. I took out my dehum advantage for the one based on discourse. The policy impact is structural violence. The critical advantage is nuclear holocaust. IS there a better impact to patriarchy out there? Ive look at every card i could find, and that impact worked with my scenerio.

I was originally going to have a fw of you can't weigh life against life, but i never worked.

What would be the best framework in this instance? How should i write it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem with the framework is how to make it that the policy sphere is more important, yet i can still access my discursive advantage. The critical advantage is not the premise of the case, but it does fit in with the whole thing.

I don't have a deontological fw to work with. I took out my dehum advantage for the one based on discourse. The policy impact is structural violence. The critical advantage is nuclear holocaust. IS there a better impact to patriarchy out there? Ive look at every card i could find, and that impact worked with my scenerio.

I was originally going to have a fw of you can't weigh life against life, but i never worked.

What would be the best framework in this instance? How should i write it?

 

If you're claiming discourse advantages...

 

Our framework for this debate insists that we privilege the actual, in round implications of the discussion at hand. This is the most educational, and fair way to approach argument, and is preferred for a few reasons:

A) The impacts we outline are real: We think pretending is creative, but also abstract. We should focus on the debate before we look “post fiat” to witness imaginary “solvency”.

B) Externally fiating our activism is bad: We sever ourselves from personal agency, while burying ourselves in the act of political simulation.

C) Reliance on traditional ground: This either recreates community exclusion of the critical questions about the community, or trains us to be complicit in the bureaucratic system of war and violence that we criticize.

 

Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A) The impacts we outline are real: We think pretending is creative, but also abstract. We should focus on the debate before we look “post fiat” to witness imaginary “solvency”.

 

Perhaps it's unfair to isolate one part of your argument in isolation, but this has to be the most shallow and ridiculous argument for critical debate. How is the discussion of legitimate policy options which could benefit or hurt millions of people not a real impact (and by extension, the empowerment of citizens in a democratic environment)? It seems to me that if looking at negative implications of the state (or whatever else being critiqued- capitalism, development, surveillance) is a real impact, then so would the flip side of that: looking at the positive implications of the state as per plan action.

 

I'm tired of presumptuous bullshit passing for legitimate thought: sorry, debate isn't going to change the world. At the end of the day, you're right; plan won't pass. But neither will your alternative. It's disingenuous at best to claim anything more. The distinction between "critical" and "policy" arguments is just silly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it's unfair to isolate one part of your argument in isolation, but this has to be the most shallow and ridiculous argument for critical debate. How is the discussion of legitimate policy options which could benefit or hurt millions of people not a real impact (and by extension, the empowerment of citizens in a democratic environment)? It seems to me that if looking at negative implications of the state (or whatever else being critiqued- capitalism, development, surveillance) is a real impact, then so would the flip side of that: looking at the positive implications of the state as per plan action.

 

I'm tired of presumptuous bullshit passing for legitimate thought: sorry, debate isn't going to change the world. At the end of the day, you're right; plan won't pass. But neither will your alternative. It's disingenuous at best to claim anything more. The distinction between "critical" and "policy" arguments is just silly.

 

I didn't write it. I just pushed Ctrl+V.

 

If you ask me, you're absolutely right. I feel the need to quote this statement again, simply because I agree with it.

 

At the end of the day, you're right; plan won't pass. But neither will your alternative. It's disingenuous at best to claim anything more. The distinction between "critical" and "policy" arguments is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm tired of presumptuous bullshit passing for legitimate thought: sorry, debate isn't going to change the world. At the end of the day, you're right; plan won't pass. But neither will your alternative. It's disingenuous at best to claim anything more. The distinction between "critical" and "policy" arguments is just silly.

 

I'm probably not qualified for such a response but I'm pretty sure this is the basis for most Kritiks and why they usually have the "fiat bad" stance. I'd be the first to agree that such criticisms in debate wont change a single thing but it is their claim to prove. The purpose of the alternative (ie. vote neg and reject ___ etc) is to somehow solve the impact created by the in-round assumption/mindset. It is pretty ridiculous, but thats actually what they're trying to prove. If you don't buy it, then call them out- question the alternative and why what they are doing is any better than your "fake" world of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm probably not qualified for such a response but I'm pretty sure this is the basis for most Kritiks and why they usually have the "fiat bad" stance. I'd be the first to agree that such criticisms in debate wont change a single thing but it is their claim to prove. The purpose of the alternative (ie. vote neg and reject ___ etc) is to somehow solve the impact created by the in-round assumption/mindset. It is pretty ridiculous, but thats actually what they're trying to prove. If you don't buy it, then call them out- question the alternative and why what they are doing is any better than your "fake" world of policy.

 

Policymaking may be a "fake" world, but at least it's about the real world, not the world inside some ivory tower philosopher's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote myself in the past:

The basic structure of a really kritikal aff is similar to the Torah, you read it from right to left of course.

Other than that there's no significant difference between a policy aff and a critical aff. The only substantial difference (usually) is what literature it's based in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Policymaking may be a "fake" world, but at least it's about the real world, not the world inside some ivory tower philosopher's head.

 

First off, I wasn't really talking about critical affs just the specific fiat bad answer that yostarica responded too.

 

This is no answer whatsoever to what I said. To a team running a K and saying "fiat bad," traditional policymaking isn't about the real world at all. They'll defend that what goes on the in the round/what actually happens and affects us in real life, is more important than a political simulation.. a game which occurs from round to round with no tangible solvency in the world (the ballot doesn't mean anything). Now its the job of that team to prove that their claim based off of some "ivory tower philosopher's head" is real world and worthy of rejection of any and all "fiated" solvency of the affirmative.

 

This may quite possibly be the worst example ever but:

Aff runs DADT wearing blue jeans

Neg critiques blue jeans with a "pre-fiat" framework, since its real world compared to faking that DADT will get overturned when it actually won't based on the debate round

The judge votes neg to reject wearing blue jeans so the aff doesn't ever do it again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, I wasn't really talking about critical affs just the specific fiat bad answer that yostarica responded too.

 

This is no answer whatsoever to what I said. To a team running a K and saying "fiat bad," traditional policymaking isn't about the real world at all. They'll defend that what goes on the in the round/what actually happens and affects us in real life, is more important than a political simulation.. a game which occurs from round to round with no tangible solvency in the world (the ballot doesn't mean anything). Now its the job of that team to prove that their claim based off of some "ivory tower philosopher's head" is real world and worthy of rejection of any and all "fiated" solvency of the affirmative.

 

This may quite possibly be the worst example ever but:

Aff runs DADT wearing blue jeans

Neg critiques blue jeans with a "pre-fiat" framework, since its real world compared to faking that DADT will get overturned when it actually won't based on the debate round

The judge votes neg to reject wearing blue jeans so the aff doesn't ever do it again

Pre-fiat/post-fiat are arbitrary and unhelpful distinctions.

 

Fiat bad is a stupid argument to make when running a critique, fiat good is almost never responsive to a critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pre-fiat/post-fiat are arbitrary and unhelpful distinctions.

 

Fiat bad is a stupid argument to make when running a critique, fiat good is almost never responsive to a critique.

 

Fiat good is generally an argument that doesn't respond to the kritik itself, but it allows the aff to weigh their case against the criticism. This is usually a pretty effective way for the aff to beat the k because generally the alternative doesn't solve case or it doesn't solve specific advantages like US Leadership or a relations advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need "fiat good" to weigh the aff against the criticism. And it's not responsive to the neg teams that claim pre-fiat advantages so the aff doesn't matter type shit because it still doesn't give you access to WEIGHING your impacts; just some offense about why imagining plan passage is good.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...