Jump to content
Immortal Technique

Is a K alt an advocacy

Recommended Posts

From what i understand, the K alt is analogous to CP solvency. Also from what i understand, a CP is not an advocacy because you are not asking the judge to take an action but using the CP as an opportunity cost to show that there is a better action to take. idk though because for a K it seems more like you are advocating rejection of something or else you make the entire K meaningless. Im probably fucking something up though, please help me, thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not true, it can be depending on the framework debate, but you by doing plan you are doing MORE than just passing up the oppurtunity to reject "x", you are re-entrenching it - discursively, via the ballot, or in a world of policy implications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with Pepsi One on this issue here. I feel that the K alt is more on a theoretical level than on a policy option level. Seeing as how most alt texts are something along the line of "Vote neg in order to blank", the alt text isn't really an advocacy, but a philosophical rejection of the affirmative plan. In many ways, the K basically takes advantage of neg presumption and says plan should not be done because of this mindset. The K is about picking out small flaws in assumptions of the plan or contradictions within the aff's own framework and then blowing them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Vote neg in order to blank", the alt text isn't really an advocacy, but a philosophical rejection of the affirmative plan.

 

Why is the philosophical rejection of the aff not an advocacy? If this rejection claims to solve the problems presented in the 1AC, e.g. the harms, why shouldn't it be evaluated at such? Alternatives never say "rejecting the aff in general solves" - rather, it's rejecting a certain point of view or methodology that the 1AC must endorse. So, it's not just a rejection of the aff, but rather, a rejection of the model the aff defends.

 

 

In short, most consensus evaluates the Alternative as an advocacy. Another way you'll see it ran is as a "test of methodology", but this isn't really arguing that the alternative isn't an advocacy. Rather, it's justifying why the neg should get the right to both a K alt and a CP in the same debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is the philosophical rejection of the aff not an advocacy? If this rejection claims to solve the problems presented in the 1AC, e.g. the harms, why shouldn't it be evaluated at such? Alternatives never say "rejecting the aff in general solves" - rather, it's rejecting a certain point of view or methodology that the 1AC must endorse. So, it's not just a rejection of the aff, but rather, a rejection of the model the aff defends.

 

 

In short, most consensus evaluates the Alternative as an advocacy. Another way you'll see it ran is as a "test of methodology", but this isn't really arguing that the alternative isn't an advocacy. Rather, it's justifying why the neg should get the right to both a K alt and a CP in the same debate.

 

I think I phrased what I was trying to say badly. What I'm trying to say is that it's not an advocacy in the way that policy options are advocated. In my novice year, for the longest time, I didn't get the biopower alternative (hyperactive pessimism or something) because I didn't see how that was a legit advocacy. I saw the alt as something like having everyone walk around for the rest of his/her life being all depressed.

 

 

Also, from what I understand stuff like counterplans and k alts aren't necessarily advocated, they are just things which you can't do once the aff is passed and if you can show that the benefits of the CP or k alt outweigh the plan, you vote down the aff on presumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I phrased what I was trying to say badly. What I'm trying to say is that it's not an advocacy in the way that policy options are advocated. In my novice year, for the longest time, I didn't get the biopower alternative (hyperactive pessimism or something) because I didn't see how that was a legit advocacy. I saw the alt as something like having everyone walk around for the rest of his/her life being all depressed.

 

Well, duh. The CP is a policy option. The K is normally some sort of methodological/discoursive/epistemological personal choice. The K only relates to the debaters in round - it will typically only care about the plan insofar as it's a reflection of a particular discourse of the debaters. Those differences doesn't change the fact that an alternative is still something being advocated...

 

Also, from what I understand stuff like counterplans and k alts aren't necessarily advocated, they are just things which you can't do once the aff is passed and if you can show that the benefits of the CP or k alt outweigh the plan, you vote down the aff on presumption.

 

I think you're wrong here - *anything* can be done after anything is passed. It's not impossible to overturn the bill of rights and then afterwards restart them.

 

Also, what are you implying by 'advocating'? The negative gains NB's from the K and CP... they potentially both solve case... they have to go for one, typically, to outweigh the aff... where are they ever different from an advocated position? They're not, because they're advocacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to go out on a limb here and sum all of this up.

 

Almost everyone question you ask about the K, CP, debate, will have more than one answer from more than one person. The answer is that you can make anything in debate to be anything you want it to be. That is, of course, if the judge will let you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
is a counterplan whose NB is the K considered an alternative?

it depends if u read an alternative to the kritik. For example you could read an AU CP with a colonialism NB and claim that the Cp solves the link to the K ebecause iot allows Africa to solve for itself. Or you could read the AU CP and read the K witht the alt, but this would get you into a little bit more troruble with theory and i wouldnt see the srategic advantage of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always tend to conceptualize the alternative as something that gives uniqueness to every link, rather than an "advocacy". Sure, the neg advocates the alternative insofar that it should be done instead of the links, but I don't think its meant to 'compete' with the plan text of the 1AC (which is why I find perms on criticisms to be inane). The alternative is just a way to prove that the affirmative had a choice to employ the discourse or mentality that you were criticizing, that there is an alternative way of conceptualizing the world which the ACTION of the 1AC could be done within. Conceptualizing alternatives like this has a few advantages. For one, I think that it allows you to get out of the perm debate pretty easily by just suggesting how stupid it really is. Also, it allows you to justify floating PIKS which are essential to test the ethical assumptions of the 1AC and prevents the aff from weighing the case against the alt. (the infamous "the alternative doesn't do the plan, our impacts out weigh" style 2AC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to think about the alternative not as an advocacy like the plan, but more like a simple alternative framework. The K's alternative is not an action that we go out and do, it is a framework to consider questions of what we should do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like an above poster, it defends on the framework. It is same to assume that it is an advocacy, as it probably will be in most debate rounds. However, some negative teams construct counterplans to only be a test of best policy options versus and advocacy. Same with criticisms -- just not the BPO aspect. The criticism is simply a reason to vote negative and the alternative is an attempt to solve back the uniqueness deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'm going to go out on a limb here and sum all of this up.

 

Almost everyone question you ask about the K, CP, debate, will have more than one answer from more than one person. The answer is that you can make anything in debate to be anything you want it to be. That is, of course, if the judge will let you.

 

I would point out though, that critiques have become so ingrained in debate culture by now that I would expect the majority treat a K alternative like a CP text by default. Of course arguments in-round can change that, but I think for most people, it's as assumed as neg gets presumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kritik is the neg's advocacy and generally the alt functions to transform that into a voting issue. Whether the alt is a CP, demonstrating the opportunity cost of the aff or a simple rejection alt pushing the philosophical or discursive side, the actual advocacy is within the kritik itself. At least that's how I see it. Without such a view, a team could run two contradictory K's each with rejection alts, and go in 2nr only for the one whose link is better upheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can call the K itself an advocacy. Otherwise, a disad would be an advocacy. Rather, the "K" part of it (link, impact) is the reasons why the aff is bad, and the alternative is the reason the neg is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K's and DA's are appreciably different. A DA says that the post-fiat world will be disadvantageous. A kritik is about the here and now. To win a kritik, a debater should be advocating the adoption of the philosophy she is espousing in-round. The question of what happens in the world is wholly theoretical. The aim is to have the judge evaluate the round based on the worldview of the kritik, which generally requires a rejection of the discourse or assumptions of the opponent. The idea that a kritik is about the aff plan leading to a bad impact is a complete misunderstanding of kritikal debate, though a common one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K's and DA's are appreciably different. A DA says that the post-fiat world will be disadvantageous. A kritik is about the here and now. To win a kritik, a debater should be advocating the adoption of the philosophy she is espousing in-round. The question of what happens in the world is wholly theoretical. The aim is to have the judge evaluate the round based on the worldview of the kritik, which generally requires a rejection of the discourse or assumptions of the opponent. The idea that a kritik is about the aff plan leading to a bad impact is a complete misunderstanding of kritikal debate, though a common one.

 

First of all, this argument is only half-true. A good many of the critique impacts out there do argue that post-plan, some bad thing would occur (whether this is true/a good argument or not is a different story).

 

Second, and more importantly, that wasn't really relevant. For the purposes of the point I was making, DAs and Ks are the same thing - they both say "aff is bad, therefore reject the aff." The methodology is much different, but that is the root idea behind any link/impact scenario. Since we acknowledge, as debaters, that evaluating the world of aff's plan is a core component of the debate, we can evaluate both the "here and now," as you say it, and the world of aff's plan, at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, this argument is only half-true. A good many of the critique impacts out there do argue that post-plan, some bad thing would occur (whether this is true/a good argument or not is a different story).

Not if you're doing it right. It can be argued that policies based on bad assumptions are doomed to failure and will cause nasty things, but the essential nature of the kritik is that perpetuating the assumption or discourse, in and of itself, will lead to bad impacts. Hence, a world where I, as the judge, accept colonialist discourse is more likely to have genocide than a world in which I reject it. It's not about the plan at all, but about the acceptance or rejection of the assumption or discourse. It's even possible for the increased chance of K impacts to occur if I vote neg, given I do it for a reason other than a personal rejection of colonialism - say for solvency issues.

 

If you think kritiks say the plan will lead to something bad, then you might as well just call DA, because that's what it is.

 

Edit: A link to a good article on what a kritik is: http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxkbennett0496.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...the essential nature of the kritik is that perpetuating the assumption or discourse, in and of itself, will lead to bad impacts. Hence, a world where I, as the judge, accept colonialist discourse is more likely to have genocide than a world in which I reject it. It's not about the plan at all, but about the acceptance or rejection of the assumption or discourse. It's even possible for the increased chance of K impacts to occur if I vote neg, given I do it for a reason other than a personal rejection of colonialism - say for solvency issues.

 

If you think kritiks say the plan will lead to something bad, then you might as well just call DA, because that's what it is.

 

1) the only way a perpetuation of the assumption occurs should be an aff ballot, meaning yes it is kinda like a da. to me the k is equivelant to say, a realations da with the corresponding consult cp.

 

2) claims that it links before plan passage are bad for debate, the aff needs only to defnend that the aff plan is a good idea and that it fits underthe rez. this means neg defends either the status quo OR another action (i.e. a cp). the alt calls for a rejection of an ideology which neccesitates the rejection of the squo and plan, but fails to take any real action because the alternative does not test the action taken by the aff, merely ideology already present.

 

3) dude all einsteinthe12th is saying is that the only reason to reject the aff (assuming its agreed to be topical) is that it causes something bad. its his second point. if it didnt cause something ba, there's no reason to reject the aff. you even say the rejection is predicated upon the aff increasing the probability of x. and the article you post even implies this.

"The kritik argues that there is a harm created by the assumption

created or used by the other side."

-see my number 2 for why the latter part is bad.

 

4) k impacts still function effectually like a da, they just do so at an incremental level. making the link and impact a linear da with a "non-traditional" impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1&4 - The problem here is one of understanding the basic nature of what a kritik is. Sure, a kritik has some similarities to a DA. Implications are similar to impacts. Okay, one similarity.

 

Your second point is up for debate in the round, no? If I say the discourse we have in this room will lead to no policy, so the judge should determine a winner based on her view of superior discourse rather than by some imaginary world where the plan actually happens, then we have a framework debate. MMM - fun. After all, how many debate plans have ever actually been enacted?

 

And as for point 3, my objection is where this discussion occurs. A kritik is an advocacy. While teaching a novice that a K is simply a generic DA with an alternative might be expedient and get them back in the library cutting cards, it's not doing them any favors. One day a team that really understands the theory behind kritiks is going to come up and kick their asses...then how much will they appreciate EinsteinXXII's advice?

 

Again - a kritik is an advocacy. It is the assertion that some idea (discursive, ontological etc) should be more important than fiat in the debate, and that the team that best upholds that idea should win. If you convince the judge that is untrue, you'll likely beat the kritikal team. Even if you do, the kritikal team has still advocated their kritik - they can't go and run something contradictory.

 

I'm not saying that's how kritiks are presented a vast majority of the time. I am just pointing out that most people radically misunderstand Ks - even the people who think they run them correctly. If you think 4 is true, you have no business running a K, ever. There are far and away more "kritiks" that are run by debaters who completely misunderstand the theory than by those who get it.

 

It's complicated, but don't give up. You'll get it someday.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've come to think about the alternative not as an advocacy like the plan, but more like a simple alternative framework. The K's alternative is not an action that we go out and do, it is a framework to consider questions of what we should do.

this is a good post

 

as per usual in these sort of threads it is ignored :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1&4 - The problem here is one of understanding the basic nature of what a kritik is. Sure, a kritik has some similarities to a DA. Implications are similar to impacts. Okay, one similarity.

 

dude, outside of the alt its no different than a linear da, mechanically., i get what your saying, but for purposes of debate, you answer the first part the same way you do a da.

 

Your second point is up for debate in the round, no? If I say the discourse we have in this room will lead to no policy, so the judge should determine a winner based on her view of superior discourse rather than by some imaginary world where the plan actually happens, then we have a framework debate. MMM - fun. After all, how many debate plans have ever actually been enacted?

 

i mean yeah, framework is an inround issue... but since we're talking about it... hows is the world of the k any less imaginary? so ok, the role of the ballot becomes a check on the implication. but in that sense the ballot only serves as defnese against the ideology progressing any further. now, how many times has a k, true or not, lost? and how many times have the implications happened? they dont happen anymore than the impacts of case do.

 

And as for point 3, my objection is where this discussion occurs. A kritik is an advocacy. While teaching a novice that a K is simply a generic DA with an alternative might be expedient and get them back in the library cutting cards, it's not doing them any favors. One day a team that really understands the theory behind kritiks is going to come up and kick their asses...then how much will they appreciate EinsteinXXII's advice?

 

Again - a kritik is an advocacy. It is the assertion that some idea (discursive, ontological etc) should be more important than fiat in the debate, and that the team that best upholds that idea should win. If you convince the judge that is untrue, you'll likely beat the kritikal team. Even if you do, the kritikal team has still advocated their kritik - they can't go and run something contradictory.

 

 

I'm not saying that's how kritiks are presented a vast majority of the time. I am just pointing out that most people radically misunderstand Ks - even the people who think they run them correctly. If you think 4 is true, you have no business running a K, ever. There are far and away more "kritiks" that are run by debaters who completely misunderstand the theory than by those who get it.

 

It's complicated, but don't give up. You'll get it someday.

 

 

ok, im not disagreeing with you. i think the problem is that einstein and i are talking about how the k and its alt functions mechanically, not in actuality, inround. the k is an advocacy, i agree, and you answers need to be writtin with an understanding of it as an advocacy, however, it also needs to answer it from the link/impact sense. you cant just say its untrue because x, like you would any other simple advocacy. u need to frame it within that link/impact/alt context. which is all i'm trying to get at. the said novice who is seeking an undestanding of the k, needs to be aware that it is complex, and has parts, and as a means of education it is effective to relate those parts to more comfortable territory, like a da, then explain the nuances.

 

 

and yea, dan's good post did go ignored...

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...