Jump to content
Eric_W.

Question about what something means? Ask here!

Recommended Posts

Why is the prima facia burden ususally not present in T-arguments?

 

I'm not sure if anyone answered this, but I think the fact that you sort of made it a rhetorical question means that you probably already know the answer. Prima facie burden is an excellent standard. Had you debated about ten years ago, everyone would have had that as a standard because it's a lot better than jurisdiction or even education. The reason people don't use it now is because T is more about proving abuse than just simply proving why a case does not meet the resolution. "Prima facie" means "makes sense at first glance". Well, in this case, a case that's not topical still probably makes sense. I would agree with you that it should be a standard, but with all of the critical cases out there, it sort of looses its meaning. I usually put a standard like this on FX T or extra-T, though, just because it probably makes a bit more sense that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Have looked up the meaning of biopower online, but I can't really understand it. Could someone explain what it is? I don't want to sound like an idiot, but i'm new to debate and I've been reading different threads on cross-x and i really would like to know. Thanks!

 

first of all, if you are looking to run fuko at all, you must read his works. For general theory on biopolitics and biopower check out The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. this book gives the outline for biopower in itself in the last section. Another main thing you are going to want to do is look into reading some of Giorgio Agamben's works, the main one that i have cut and used for evidence in Homo Sacer. Biopower in itself is the government's control over the masses, such as making people docile (easily malleable) to fit what the government wants, and the great thing about biopower ! scenarios is that they can be tied in with almost any kritik. Example, in HoS volume 1, foucault talks about the success of capitalism is through the injection of persons into the system by the government. once again, i highly stress that if you are going to run any kritik, you must get your hands on as much lit possible, cut good evidence, and use about a fourth of that evidence, if not less (meaning only the really really superior cards) if you have anymore questions on it, pm me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does environmental securitization mean, my coach said that heidigger will be part of it, but im wanting to know the most about it as possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does environmental securitization mean, my coach said that heidigger will be part of it, but im wanting to know the most about it as possible

 

Mmm... don't know too terribly much about Environmental Security, but I can give you a basic explanation of Heidegger.

 

Essentially, the argument is that we have lost our connection with nature. Heidegger says that we have resorted to technological and calculative thinking. Nature can no longer simply be good... it must be good for something. That idea is called "standing reserve" - the idea that we cannot simply enjoy nature, but that we must destroy it and store it up in warehouses so that we can later use it as energy. However, it is under this same mindset that we base our relationships with humans. In the same way that the forest is a standing reserve for the lumberjack, the lumberjack is a standing reserve for the lumber company. The company only sees the lumberjack for his/her use. As soon as the lumberjack becomes useless, he/she can be disposed of. And these politics of disposability - the idea that once something is defective/old/useless/bad, we can get rid of it - is what justifies things like the Holocaust and genocide. The alternative to the K - meditative thought without any actual action - solves because we stop creating these bandaid solutions (like the Affirmative plan) that only perpetuate the mindset of standing reserve. In the meditative thought mindset, we create a bond with nature and begin to view it - and, in effect, other humans - as worth more than what they can be used for. And thus... we prevent genocide and the Holocaust. :]

 

There's a pretty good discussion going on here - http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=982811. Startop summarizes Heidegger very well.

Edited by msschristinex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does environmental securitization mean, my coach said that heidigger will be part of it, but im wanting to know the most about it as possible

 

Environmental Securitization is very much different from Heidegger. It says that threats to the environment are constructed by people like the aff and that they justify militarism and authoritarian approaches to the environment.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=389eb20b4fc8c4eaab1eab3e9fa335ca1dcc1ab7a9b3d4d7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can somebody explain to me what Tobin Tax is?

 

Wikipedia is your friend. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A kritik is a idea or state of mind' date=' its like a disad but instead of a uniqeness they have an alternative.

 

A simple kritik would be a capitilsm Kritik, a set up would be

 

Link= foreign monetary aid links to dependance on foreign aid

!= dependence on foreign aid is dehumanising

Alternative=reject foreign aid[/quote']

This is the reason there are so many bad kritik debaters out there - bad advice from people who know too little to do anything but damage.

 

A Kritik is an argument that the underlying elements of your opponents' position is in some way flawed. It may be in the manner of thinking, discussing or even contextualizing their arguments. The flaws present in their arguments are your link.

 

The flaws you demonstrate lead to bad things. But wait - those bad things are not tied to the passage of the plan. The bad things (implications from here on out) will occur as a result of the acceptance of the flaws by society at large, and the judge in specific. Implications need not be unique - the squo can be rife with them. Your argument is that we should be working to stop things like rape, genocide and reality TV. This point cannot be emphasized too much - implications do not occur as a result of plan passage but only require acceptance of the flawed reasoning. This makes kritiks "pre-fiat" or "A-priori" issues.

 

The alternative is the action the judge can take to keep the implications at bay. Your alternative is generally to reject the flawed arguments of your opponent. This generally results in the ballot as an expression of that rejection. You will not be asking the judge to reject the plan, except as the plan is representative of the flawed arguments of the opponent.

 

Remember this above all else when discussing kritik - the K is about what happens outside of fiat. Kritik is an argument about how to argue, making it much more like Topicality than a DA. When someone tries to describe a K to you in terms of a DA, please ignore them - they don't have the concept yet or are dumbing it down to a point of uselessness.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wikipedia is your friend. :)

 

Wikipedia can also be edited by anyone. That's why I don't trust it lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wikipedia can also be edited by anyone. That's why I don't trust it lol.

 

a study found wikipedia has less errors than many major online encyclopedias, such as britannica.

 

you know like, wikipedia has regulations as to who can edit, and people correct stuff and are supposed to cite it. once i changed a word in my schools wiki page, and after i refreshed it, someone had corrected it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a study found wikipedia has less errors than many major online encyclopedias, such as britannica.

 

you know like, wikipedia has regulations as to who can edit, and people correct stuff and are supposed to cite it. once i changed a word in my schools wiki page, and after i refreshed it, someone had corrected it.

 

Haha. My friend made a page for another friend. Within, like... 5 minutes it was gone. :rolleyes: And I agree. Just to get the general idea of something, Wikipedia is legit. I just wouldn't quote it in any sort of essay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure if anyone has posted it yet.

 

but what is FX topicality? is it the same as Extra Topicality?

 

if not can you help me understand both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a study found wikipedia has less errors than many major online encyclopedias, such as britannica.

 

you know like, wikipedia has regulations as to who can edit, and people correct stuff and are supposed to cite it. once i changed a word in my schools wiki page, and after i refreshed it, someone had corrected it.

 

 

did you find this on wikipedia?..haha.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not sure if anyone has posted it yet.

 

but what is FX topicality? is it the same as Extra Topicality?

 

if not can you help me understand both?

 

 

Here is the quick reply

 

The resolution requires "increase [in] alternative energy incentives" meaning that we need to take some positive action that makes people/businesses more likely to build Alternative energy structures.

 

effects T or FX(T) - is when the affirmative plan does something that will lead to the building of more alternative energy but does it in some different manner. For example-(and I am sure there are other better ones out there)- the affirmative taxes power companies that produce carbon dioxide to the point that it is no longer economically viable to produce energy in this method. This would be an [dis]incentive for them to produce energy in a way that no longer produces CO2, i.e. alternative energy.

 

Extra-Topical plans xtra(T) - Takes an action through the affirmative plan then adds something extra onto the end, or adds another step to the process that is not a standard process. For example- Plan: have the USFG increase alternative energy incentives by offering loan guarantees for IFRs (regardless of whether they are an alt nrg) AND have them decommission existing nuclear power plans and replace them with IFRs. This second step, the one that is an extra step, would be an easily identifiable example.

Usually teams that run plans that have an extra/effects topical case are doing it to garner some sort of strategic positioning later in the debate round. Which makes it fairly easy to prove in round abuse through some dis-ad or CP.

 

If you have any question ask,

 

~ish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not sure if anyone has posted it yet.

 

but what is FX topicality? is it the same as Extra Topicality?

 

if not can you help me understand both?

FX (or more properly effects) Topicality is not the same as extra Topicality. Effects Topical plans are plans that result in topical action, but not directly. Say your plan was to ban foreign military deployments except as necessary to maintain alliances and guard embassies. This would not, in and of itself, create an incentive for alternate fuels. The lack of heg in the ME however, would likely make oil supplies scarce, generating an economic incentive. The actual action did nothing in reference to the topic, but had an effect which fits the resolution. That's effects topicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are shells and frameworks?

 

I'm assuming that shells are just specific args that you run in coordinance with a specific speech. Like a 1NC shell would list CP, net benefit, etc...but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shell is a brief with all the univeral parts of an argument ready to be read. All you need to do is have the specific links to your opponent's argument at hand to insert at the necessary time. The most common example is a topicality shell, which will have all the standards and voters listed and empty spaces in the outline to insert definitions and violations.

 

Framework is generally the term used to differentiate a kritikal from a policy approach to judging. More specifically, it is a way of asking the judge to view the round in a specific manner. A negative kritikal team running against an aff policy team will ask the judge to use a discursive, ontological or epistemological framework and the aff will defend a standard policy making framework. If neg wins the framework argument, and demonstrates the kritik links, they will win almost all the time. If the neg loses framework, they simply cannot win with a genuine kritik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PTC is a Production Tax Credit, sort of like a reward for companies that do something. In the terms of this year's topic, the PTC is the incentive that affirmatives propose for alt. energy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These terms are all over CrossX, and I just wanted to know what they stand for?

 

ptc and pic

 

PIC is a Plan Inclusive Counterplan. Basically it will have most of the plan in the counterplan except for one element.

 

An example would be this:

 

Plan: The USfg should give subsidies to develop wind and solar technologies for alternative energy.

 

Counterplan: The USfg should give subsidies to develop solar technologies for alternative energy.

 

A lot of counterplans are PICs, in actuality, such as States and International Actor CPs, but they usually won't be referred to as PICs.

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...