Jump to content
Eric_W.

Question about what something means? Ask here!

Recommended Posts

1. How do advantage cp's answer the perm? I've been looking through some files and there are no a2 perms included. I can't think of a reason for mutual exclusivity.

You can either claim that running both plans to solve for the same advantage is redundant (which is kind of weak because then you have to prove that your cp solve better) or you could use a DA as a net benefit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can either claim that running both plans to solve for the same advantage is redundant (which is kind of weak because then you have to prove that your cp solve better) or you could use a DA as a net benefit

The first part of this is kinda unnecessary. Impact turns/DAs + adv cps are a much better route to go. Any time you say "solves better" is the NB the perm definitely solves because the CP is not opportunity cost to the plan. There needs to be something offensive the CP avoids, which is the utility of Adv cps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the difference between advocacy statement and plantext? 

 

Whats post modernism specifically to debate?

 

Can you win rounds solely on meta debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the difference between advocacy statement and plantext? 

A plan text is a traditional fiated USfg action.  K affs usually read an advocacy statement instead, which usually encapsulates the ethic that they endorse or the type of (usually not USfg/fiated/traditional) action they affirm.

 

Whats post modernism specifically to debate?

Post modernism is just a branch of philosophy.  Post modernists tend to reject universalism and monolithic structures as posited in modernists studies such as marxism.  I think that this site has a very decent, very basic summary of what post modernism is 

http://www19.homepage.villanova.edu/karyn.hollis/prof_academic/Courses/2043_pop/modernism_vs_postmodernism.htm

 

Can you win rounds solely on meta debate?

Not really sure what that means.  Could you clarify?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whats the difference between advocacy statement and plantext? 

A plan text is a traditional fiated USfg action.  K affs usually read an advocacy statement instead, which usually encapsulates the ethic that they endorse or the type of (usually not USfg/fiated/traditional) action they affirm.

 

Whats post modernism specifically to debate?

Post modernism is just a branch of philosophy.  Post modernists tend to reject universalism and monolithic structures as posited in modernists studies such as marxism.  I think that this site has a very decent, very basic summary of what post modernism is 

http://www19.homepage.villanova.edu/karyn.hollis/prof_academic/Courses/2043_pop/modernism_vs_postmodernism.htm

 

Can you win rounds solely on meta debate?

Not really sure what that means.  Could you clarify?

 

Ah okay thanks.

 

On the meta debate question, should have worded it better, can you win theory debates with meta level analytics about the theory aspect of the arg? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah okay thanks.

 

On the meta debate question, should have worded it better, can you win theory debates with meta level analytics about the theory aspect of the arg? 

Still not quite sure what your asking, but I'll take a stab at it.  If you're asking if you can win a debate solely on theory, then yes, but it really depends on the theory.  Most judges are comfortable voting on condo/dispo bad, but beyond that pretty much everyone is going to default to rejecting the argument unless you have a really compelling reason why they screwed up the debate.  If by meta level analytics you mean arguments about why theory is a priori, then I would say that that is not enough in and of itself to get a win.  Once you win that theory comes before the substance of the debate, you still have to win some impact to your theory in order to win.  If I've still completely missed the boat let me know

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not quite sure what your asking, but I'll take a stab at it.  If you're asking if you can win a debate solely on theory, then yes, but it really depends on the theory.  Most judges are comfortable voting on condo/dispo bad, but beyond that pretty much everyone is going to default to rejecting the argument unless you have a really compelling reason why they screwed up the debate.  If by meta level analytics you mean arguments about why theory is a priori, then I would say that that is not enough in and of itself to get a win.  Once you win that theory comes before the substance of the debate, you still have to win some impact to your theory in order to win.  If I've still completely missed the boat let me know

You answered the main part of what I needed clarification on, thanks!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I counter a framework that claims probability trumps magnitude?

Magnitude trumps probability. There's some Bostrom cards floating around that are decent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I counter a framework that claims probability trumps magnitude?

Risk of extinction means you weigh the impacts - there's no coming back from extinction so even if there's only a risk of extinction, that still warrants a X ballot

 

You can read like a critique of moral perfectionism and the sorts

 

Edit: We go to the same school -_-

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a PIC? or a PIK? when the word "floating" is added is the definition changed? Does it mean i left it unaddressed? Also, does the neg mention in their speeches if they run or bring up a pic? And, how would i respond?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A PIK is a kritik thats claims to solve case - (SO usally a with root cause claims/alt solvency )  like look for wordings of ALT SOLVES YOUR IMPACTS ,  

A PIC is a counterplan that does a mechanism thats the Affirmative doesnt use , like an ACTOR CP could be one hypothetically speaking . But more for A PIC is like allow us to use the Ocean to explore minus this one area ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, the floating PIK is made in the block on a reps K (links are based on the justifications for the plan, not the actions of the plan, which means the alternative can still include plan action and the aff can't outweigh); it's generally considered theoretically illegitimate, so that's usually sufficient.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, the floating PIK is made in the block on a reps K (links are based on the justifications for the plan, not the actions of the plan, which means the alternative can still include plan action and the aff can't outweigh); it's generally considered theoretically illegitimate, so that's usually sufficient.  

or a Cap K (alt solves the K) - legitimacy is open to interpretation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PICs and PIKs are negative strategies used to moot a majority of affirmative offense. They include most of the plan MINUS one part. 

 

A PIC is a Plan-Inclusive Counterplan. The counterplan includes most of the affirmative plan MINUS one small part. Removal of this small part is where the negative gains their offense/net benefit. 

 

ex. The OTEC PIC was pretty popular this year against the MHK Renewables aff. The Plan Inclusive Counterplan was to do all of the marine hydrokinetic technologies MINUS one type of technology, OTEC. The negative then has to convince the judge that OTEC is really bad. The negative gains advantages from all the other hydrokinetic tech and claims offense by avoiding the negative environmental impacts that would be caused by the inclusion of OTEC. 

 

The PIC is really strategic for negative teams because it moots much of the affirmative's offense. The affirmative is forced to adamantly defend a tiny portion of their affirmative, because the negative says "The aff is fine except this one part that is really bad. You should vote neg to achieve aff advantages but avoid this one part of the aff that would lead to X really bad impact". 

 

One type of PIC you might see is the word PIC that endorse the affirmative's plan text without a certain word. The neg would gain offense from the removal of that word (ex. Middle Passage)

 

A PIK is a Plan-Inclusive Kritik and is often used interchangeably with the term "Floating PIK". The floating PIK is when the alternative endorses the passage of the plan without the 1AC representations that would link to the Kritik. Neg offense/net benefit is the links to the K that are avoided. Normally, negatives don't declare it as a PIK and use analytics to say that alt endorses the plan without the bad reps. This is strategic because the affirmative is prepared to debate the effects of the plan, but is now forced to defend its representations. 

 

PICs are generally considered theoretically legitimate, but as BobbyTables mentioned above, Floating PIKs are generally considered pretty abusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does an alternative generate uniqueness for a kritik?

DA - Uniqueness outline something that is happening the squo 

 

K - Alt outlines a certain method, movement, theory, idea, person, etc. that is happening in the squo

 

Links are the same for both - for a DA it explains why the plan messes up that something that is happening the squo, for a K the links explain why a certain type of mentality prevents us from embracing the alt (which is the uniqueness) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or a Cap K (alt solves the K) - legitimacy is open to interpretation 

The floating PIK is legitimate only if it's proven that epist, pedagogy, etc comes first (or plan focus bad for some other reason), as it forces a turn away from plan focus. At this point, however, it is largely useless because you've already won epist comes first, which is why it's really only considered a "trick". Usually people focus on the PIK portion rather than the "floating" portion which is unfortunate because the PIK is the legitimate part. The floating part effectively shifts the alternative, basically adding another conditional advocacy out of thin air in the 2NC. That shift has nothing in terms of theoretical justification, as it is simply a strategic trick which resolves the plan-focus debate easier if they fall for it. 

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...