Jump to content
jimpeterson

"Demand" Affs

Recommended Posts

I have seen a few affs in which the plantext is phrased "Thus, we demand that the USFG do x". What is the benefit of this, and how doesit compare to traditional fiat-oriented plantexts?

 

I'm cutting a K aff for this year and was curious about how I may want to use this.

 

Thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never run it and I'm no expert on it, but it's a way of separating the aff from the state to avoid all those statist and biopower links. If the aff recognizes that they aren't roleplaying as the federal government but instead acting as autonomous individuals, it gives them a way to spike out of links that claim any sort of statist behavior.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einstein is correct. I wouldn't do it because you can prove abuse on T because they have to defend all parts of the topic, and the USFG is one of those parts.

 

Unless they roll with "Resolved means we must be resolved". Then they've pretty much just won the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While what msacko points out may be a reason not to do it, it's also something most teams running a we demand aff are prepared for.

 

Generally a large part of the aff strategy is criticizing everything (including T) and making a lot of (possibly carded) framework arguments. The only thing I don't like about these affs is that the debate is rarely about the substance of the case; more often than not it boils down to framework or T. This can still be interesting in the instance of Ks of T, carded framework arguments, and critical advantages cross-applied to the framework debate; it's just not the path I think people should knowingly and purposefully force the debate onto. I realize that is not the purpose of writing a we demand aff (for most people) but most people running one know that's what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff and I ran a "Thus, we stand resolved that the United States Federal Government should..." aff. Some teams ran framework. We answered it.

 

It wasn't really an issue of spiking out of links to Ks (we solved them anyway), it was a matter of our key solvency evidence requiring personal advocacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a K of demand affs. Something to do with demands being "jackal language" (dominating language) and requests being "giraffe language" (peaceful language). I'm not entirely sure what the argument was beyond that, though, because it was a couple of novices running it and they ran it against a regular "should" case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would demanding that the state do X not be statist? Also, how is it a demand on the state if you make your demand to a third party and not to the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the justification is that 1) The aff is not presuming to be the state, thereby removing any chance that the affirmative itself is statist (and that is, after all, the only thing that counts) and 2) We can reform the state by making it accountable to the needs and wants of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting, but ultimately uncompelling. When one uses fiat, they don't pretend to be the state by neccesity, all they do is claim that the state should do X. I can claim that Max Weinberg and the Max Weinberg Seven should play more jump swing without neccesarily pretending to be Max or a member of the band. Also, the state could only be held accountable to a demand if the demand is made to them. Pretending to make a demand of the state would seem to be no different than pretending to be the state. The only difference is that fiat doesn't mandate pretense, but the demand strategy does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think demand aff's should be articulated so that "we demand that" takes the place of "the USFG should".

 

Instead of "The USFG Should Repeal The Age Barrier To Senior Corp," you say "We Demand That The Age Barrier To Senior Corp Is Repealed."

 

Not the best example in the world, but that's my general idea. Then you get your personal advocacy solvency and avoid the state entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fully versed in the concept and have been telling debaters to stop doing it for many years, I'm saying the argument is stupid and wrong. You get personal advocacy solvency whether that advocacy is articulated through a traditional "should" statement or through a demand statement. It's still a personal advocacy. And, since the demand strategy is still mandating (in fact demanding) action from the state, it is functionally identical.

 

So, you get personal advocacy solvency without it, and you don't avoid state-based links with it, and it's dumb, so why do it? Either it makes your plan untopical by not mandating an action of the state, or you link to criticisms of the state anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the advantage is that you can still take an anti-state position while using the state. By claiming that you are the state, you affirm its existence and legitimacy. There are probably some great prag cards (namely Zizek 97) that would work well with this position.

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...