Jump to content
Tomak

Suppose I told you I won't vote on kritiks...

Recommended Posts

I simply contend that arguing in front of such judges is a good thing on occasion. Sure, if you get me in a round you can run anything you want, but there is something to be said for having the skills to convince someone of something within a restrictive framework. It might not be as fun for those of you who love to K and like to run 12 kinds of theory, but one straight policy debate probably teaches you more tangible skills than all the K, A-spec and framework arguments you'll ever run.

 

I disagree with your last statement there. The only tangible skills your going to ever take away from debate are argumentative skills and the development of these skills is not contingent upon what your actually arguing. I would submit that, in the long run, the only tangible skill acquired through debate is the ability to objectively view arguments and then refute them based upon their weaknesses; this ability has nothing to do with what your arguing about.

 

Even in terms of direct education, by which I mean information acquired in round, Kritiks, procedurals, and framework arguments can teach one just as much as politics, spending, and actor Counterplans as well as being, for some people, far more interesting. For example, being well-versed in post-modern philosophy, is, once again for some people, far more important than being able to recite trivial economic facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with your last statement there. The only tangible skills your going to ever take away from debate are argumentative skills and the development of these skills is not contingent upon what your actually arguing. I would submit that, in the long run, the only tangible skill acquired through debate is the ability to objectively view arguments and then refute them based upon their weaknesses; this ability has nothing to do with what your arguing about.

 

Even in terms of direct education, by which I mean information acquired in round, Kritiks, procedurals, and framework arguments can teach one just as much as politics, spending, and actor Counterplans as well as being, for some people, far more interesting. For example, being well-versed in post-modern philosophy, is, once again for some people, far more important than being able to recite trivial economic facts.

Argumentation skills without the ability to adapt them in order to persuade a particular audience are less than worthless. They'll just make you look like a contrarian asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with your last statement there. The only tangible skills your going to ever take away from debate are argumentative skills and the development of these skills is not contingent upon what your actually arguing. I would submit that, in the long run, the only tangible skill acquired through debate is the ability to objectively view arguments and then refute them based upon their weaknesses; this ability has nothing to do with what your arguing about.

 

Even in terms of direct education, by which I mean information acquired in round, Kritiks, procedurals, and framework arguments can teach one just as much as politics, spending, and actor Counterplans as well as being, for some people, far more interesting. For example, being well-versed in post-modern philosophy, is, once again for some people, far more important than being able to recite trivial economic facts.

Yea, but his point was that in real life when we get a job, persuasion and convincing people is very important, and the fact that some people will contain biases is something thats just a fact and its good to get used to it with practice early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that you adapt the presentation to the group, but do you radically change the content? If you are supposed to be presenting on the same topic (say, how well your new product is working) to different audiences, you'd obviously emphasize different things (say, glitches to your tech staff and the big picture to your boss). However, your essential topic remains largely the same (it's still all about the new product).

 

I have no problem with a judge who wants a different presentation and emphasis (say, a judge who wants the K articulated in terms of plan specifics or the one who follows the debate better with debate buzzwords tacked on). On the other hand, I do have somewhat of a problem with a judge who flat out won't listen to a particular argument or position. I may be stretching the metaphor here, but your boss shouldn't tell you to refrain from mentioning one factor (such as ethical problems with the product or the number of poor consumer reviews) in the new product's success. He may ask you to downplay those things if you're presenting to his boss or something, but each content change is a serious matter.

Look at it like this: When I give a presentation to my boss' boss, I am wearing a tie. When I give one to my boss, I wear slacks and a collared shirt. When I am working with factory floor workers, I will often be in jeans and a t-shirt. I am most effective when I relate on their preferred level. I won't be discussing the same issues either. (I am a database programmer) When I talk to my boss' boss, I talk about how a system can track company-wide metrics with a minimum of labor-hours lost. When I talk to my boss, I discuss the flexibility and specificity of reporting options. When I talk to the factory workers, I discuss the ease with which data are entered into the system. For each group, the same system requires convincing on different levels.

 

Well, that's the thing...a judge who only wants to talk about the effects and advisability of the plan won't care what kind of language was used in its presentation. Likewise, one who is concerned about discourse might not care about inherency. I have seen many instances where kids failed to adapt and are thoroughly convinced they got judgefucked. It's simply not so if the other team's approach was more in line with the judging philosophy. "All they did was run a T-shell and a series of non-unique solvency arguments against my killer kritikal aff" is just whining BS if the judge said he was strict stock-issues.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ain't done debate for a long time.. but I would say aight, and do the round however I feel like doin it dependin on the case. I'm the debater, you the judge. You don't pick the topic, and it ain't your evidence/arguments. As a judge, your job is to evaluate the arguments presented before you, not be the determinin factor of what arguments can or cannot be discussed. Your judging paradigm isn't gonna affect the way I debate, education was always far more important than winnin trophies in debate for me.

 

But, in truth, I wasn't a big K debater at all.

And that's probably the healthiest attitude to take, even if it's going to cost a round here and there. What gets me are people who do that in spite of knowing how the judge would weigh the round, and still think there's necessarily some injustice at play. It just ain't so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would prolly go for a a coherent policy or oncase strat and mbye frame some Ks as solvency turns... but most judges, even those that claim all policy strats, would prolly vote on a K if it was explained well enough and if the neg had a really good, germane link and was owning the link debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think this judge's paradigm really 'hurts' a team persay - they just have to change the way they approach they lit they're comfortable with, e.g. defend a plan while reading kritiky lit on the aff. A topical plan can be a good idea because it promotes a more cosmopolitan world, fights back colonialism, or exposes the state's faults creating ruptures... Negs can also do the same. Run a PIC with a kritiky NB. OR run the K as a case turn w/o an alt.

 

This paradigm doesn't seem very restrictive either. So what if you can't run a K? Replace it with a disad, or preferably, something that is a NB to a CP. If this doesn't suit your boat, put defense on case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose at the start of the round I gave you the following judging paradigm.

 

"I am not a tabula rasa judge. I am a policymaker arbitrating a plan within the parameters of this year's resolution. If the affirmative team proposes a coherent plan that is topical and desirable, they win the round. If not, the negative team wins. I don't intervene in the arguments made in the round, with one exception: the framework I use to decide who wins does not change."

 

Do you all have policy-only aff and neg strategies ready, or would some people be taking a few minutes of prep before their first speech to assemble something quickly? Would you just ignore me and run your kritiks and kritiky affs anyway? Do you feel that one team gets an unfair advantage? Would you dislike the round if I judged you?

 

Just a hypothetical. I'm curious how you all feel on the matter.

 

I would give you a 1 on any pref sheet i turned in for tournaments that pref judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose at the start of the round I gave you the following judging paradigm.

 

"I am not a tabula rasa judge. I am a policymaker arbitrating a plan within the parameters of this year's resolution. If the affirmative team proposes a coherent plan that is topical and desirable, they win the round. If not, the negative team wins. I don't intervene in the arguments made in the round, with one exception: the framework I use to decide who wins does not change."

 

Do you all have policy-only aff and neg strategies ready, or would some people be taking a few minutes of prep before their first speech to assemble something quickly? Would you just ignore me and run your kritiks and kritiky affs anyway? Do you feel that one team gets an unfair advantage? Would you dislike the round if I judged you?

 

Just a hypothetical. I'm curious how you all feel on the matter.

 

I would do one of two things (I think a lot of people touched similar bases on this already)

 

First, I would thank the judge for not lying about his paradigm. Like others said, many a K team lost rounds because "tab" judges just don't like Ks. I dropped an important round at St Marks for this reason.

 

Either

1. Run my Ks anyways (Probably if I brought nothing else to this tournament): However, I would adapt them and explain them in terms of the policy based effects and try for a concrete policy action based alternative. Instead of saying "jouissance blah blah...biopower...queer bodies...transversing the fantasy" use lingo for the policy makers. Just overall work on adapting what I have to the situation. I don't really like the huge divide between "k" vs. "straight-up" debate because its largely simulated. I think that if you can explain your K right and in a policy manner it can pick up "policy judges"

 

2. Run Policy Positions (Most of the time I try to pack policy args with me as backups) I'd probably run T and your general policy stuff. Because method 1 isn't always effective, I'll do what I can to win...policy debate is still a game and I consider myself more on the middle of the K/policy line. Athough I do run "crazy" arguments sometimes, I'm not stuck with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although much of this has been said before, I'd probably cry for a moment, then run a few T violations (one of them a SPEC argument) with tons of standards, CP and of course a net benefit, and I always have case frontlines no matter what my A strat is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ide run my neg strat K included and go for a disad or T

 

that kind of judge is better than one who doesn't disclose his bias

 

 

And then i would call you an asshole, for not at least attempting to hear me out before dismissing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. What would the community say if I decided that I was only going to vote on critical arguments. This sounds pretty dumb but I think that it represents the same kind of closed minded thinking that would lead a judge to never consider a critical argument. Furthermore, I think another huge problem with these sorts of exclusionary judge paradigms is that the line between critical and policy arguments is becoming increasingly blurred. If the standard is that I must only have a plan, what kind of plan? Can I make a demand? Can the plan be a parody? Can I kick out of the plan text and go for my ethics arguments? Can literature/narrative/personal experience be a kind of politics? Where do we draw these lines? I have a suggestion...Debate. I find the conflict between these rhetorical traditions interesting and educational. To have a judge steal these sorts of arguments from debate is criminal. This does not mean that a judge couldn't vote for a policy only FW but it should mean that judges don't come in to a round with that argument already decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

 

I don't understand why the negative doesn't win that the plan is not "desirable" if they win their Kritik.

Maybe it needs to go a step further though: I don't understand why a judge should not vote negative if: The negative wins that their impact calculation is correct. And; the negative wins that their Critique outweighs the aff inside of whatever that impact calculation is.

 

Not this:

 

Well, I do, but for purposes of argument lets say I don't.

So for arguments sake explain it to me.

 

This:

 

I wouldn't be fazed. When the judge tells me they "aren't a fan of the K" I take it as "don't go for the K" - in all likelihood, the'll evaluate the philosophy incorrectly (or allow the affirmative to bastardize its meaning too easily).

One caveat: I might still go for the K. The judge might not even see it that way and vote on the "case turn".

 

One elaboration: Debate is hard. That paradigm is unfortunately predictable. Any team that is not ready to adapt to that paradigm did not come prepared to play the game.

 

This:

 

thank god you told me not to run Ks instead of pretending to be tab (the fake tab judge is MUCH more illegit and difficult to deal with than the judge who will just admit to his/her biases,

This is the winner right here:

 

Personally, I react by reading different overviews and making slightly different arguments on the kritik flow- I cut out all of the 'kritik speak,' I do more analysis regarding the link and how it would effect the policy itself, and I generally keep the impact on the root cause or case turn level. Also, I like to keep alternatives on a more simple level- rarely anything beyond reject.

The only reason this would not be true is that we have always already struck you:

 

Debate as best as we could in front of you, and then strike you in the future (provided there weren't judges we needed to strike more in the pool...as was said above, predictably biased judges are better than loose cannons).

 

Not this:

 

That we would strike you is not an indication that we think there's anything wrong

 

You are definitely not good for debate. That paradigm is definitely wrong.

 

Who ever said the judge was beholden to consider everything?

What? Really? Judges should be good for debate. Judges should adapt too.

 

This is true. Or at least should be.

 

The ability to adapt to different audiences is one of the most important skills we learn in debate.

This:

 

it does detract from the potential enjoyment I will get out of the round, and plus it just makes me mad if a judge won't even listen to ... NATO (I inserted NATO)

This is so true:

 

I think another huge problem with these sorts of exclusionary judge paradigms is that the line between critical and policy arguments is becoming increasingly blurred. If the standard is that I must only have a plan, what kind of plan? Can I make a demand? Can the plan be a parody? Can I kick out of the plan text and go for my ethics arguments? Can literature/narrative/personal experience be a kind of politics? Where do we draw these lines? I have a suggestion...Debate. I find the conflict between these rhetorical traditions interesting and educational. To have a judge steal these sorts of arguments from debate is criminal. This does not mean that a judge couldn't vote for a policy only FW but it should mean that judges don't come in to a round with that argument already decided.

 

And if I had a case that could only be answered with a K, I would run it. I wouldn't do this but it seems to me that paradigm gives the Neg more ability to run all their really morally apprehensible stuff.

Edited by Robbgray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... Im confused at when the word Policy Maker meant that i won't vote on a Kritik.

 

1) determining the disirability of a plan can be done in many different ways, has no one evr had a langauge shapes reality cards ran against them or language is key to policy.

 

The only thing that judge said was your going to have to win your kritik in a policy framework. So make offensive reasons why their language affects thier policy and how thats bad.

 

In this round...

If i wanted to go for a Kritik id turn it into a PIK (not floating but actual with text etc.)

 

but in most cases id just figure out which kritik i could make unqiuely link and go for that on case.

 

also the person who said they wouldn't go for a DA obviously didn't read that the plan has to be "Disirable" this means that they have to prove its a good idea in which DA's would function fine.

 

but why is a CP DA start uncool nowadays i just don't get it =] I can win on them why can't you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an act of perpetual stubbornness and somewhat arbitrary indignation, I ran a K-aff my junior year of college and didn't fill out a single pref sheet all year. Until the NDT, when my coach didn't really give us much of a choice. Looking back, I'm certain more than a few rounds were lost that could have been won if we'd done our prefs - but at the same time, we won a few rounds (out-round at CEDA Nationals and a couple at the NDT [Harvard and a team running a pretty raunchy gender performance neg] on arguments and reformulated explanations of our affirmative that I developed in response to losing those rounds with anti-K judges. I've only had maybe one or two really bad reaction by a judge to the K-Aff and both incidents involved judges who also happened to be angry coaches for schools we'd beat more than once on the argument.

 

Regardless, if I was in this situation, I would run have no qualms running my critical affirmative. That being said, the types of arguments I would make and the way I would structure my 2AC/2AR would be different from if I had a Lacan buff like Mike Baxter-kauf in the back. With a policy critic the focus is on making a theoretical tradition they likely have no interest in appear obvious and digestable. In an odd way it's almost more fun - after all, it feels a lot better to force a judge to vote for a form of argument (s)he opposes than to convince somebody of what (s)he already believes. Some of my favorite RFD's have involved judges somewhere between shocked and distraught because they never thought they would vote for wipe out. Or, perhaps best of all, a "policy maker" judge voting for us on the impact turn to policy making good. (They said Rawls = policy debaters become leaders/policymakers of the future; we conceded Rawls and extended two 1AC arguments conceded by the 1NC: first, impact turn: extended a piece of evidence criticizing traditional approaches to policy/political decisions and second, argued that even if the judge agreed with the entirety of their framework argument, they still conceded a pre-requisite argument we also made in the 1AC, that our act is a prior consideratioin to policy formation because it is key to authentic political agency, etc. etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Desiree says is interesting. However, extrapolating judging trends from college and thinking they will work in high school seems misguided. There seems to be greater accountability in the college judging pool--although voting the list is not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the judge said they won't vote for kritik's before the round, I'd lfreak out... and i'd debate the same way I normally do.

 

My 'normal' strategy includes judge adaptation, of course, but only to a certain extent. I'm here debating because I love my arguments, i've spent A LOT of time developing them and reading the literature. I don't just get camp files - I highlight the books, I format the pages, and I write the analysis - in-round and out.

 

I WILL take offense to someone who is blatently against that...

 

For every single person who thinks kritiks are cheating, you can bite me - i've put the time into this, and the effort. I'll MAKE you vote on the kritik, and i hope you feel dirty after being submerged into my critical goo. I'll deal with the loss and pick up next round - the judge will have to deal with being an ignorant asshole for a lot longer than I'll have to deal with dropping a ballot.

 

it's a stupid strategy for winning, but sometimes it's not about winning - sometimes it's about debating. Imagine that.... but with that said - I'm not going to be running D&G with that judge, and most likely not Lacan either... it's about a happy medium. If I absolutely HAVE to run some DA's, a CP, and T - so be it.... it's not like I don't know how to - but i would be striking that judge in the future.

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...