Jump to content
Immortal Technique

Is a K alt an advocacy

Recommended Posts

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.
Anyone arguing that the implications of the K wholly rely on this one ballot is a fool. And think about it: all kinds of Kritiks have lost that claimed genocide as an implication and genocide is going on with no resistance from the US in Darfur. In that sense, the Ks are proven correct. Because we've accepted (as a society) certain questionable assumptions in our society we allow our government to remain inactive on one of the most horrific examples of oppression in recent memory. People have been running Imperialism Ks for years, and our government is fighting an imperial war in Iraq. Accepting the kritiks won't stop those horrible things in and of themself, but understanding them is a necessary first step. The ballot represents the choice between the faulty assumption and the new way of thinking on a personal level for the judge.

 

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.
And I was attempting to answer the question of whether the alt was an advocacy here by stating the whole kritik is an advocacy. Understanding a kritik in the sense you are talking about will help a debater beat only the worst kritik debaters she faces. I get that it is easier to approach that way, but it doesn't make it right.

 

Too many people out there think of kritiks as generic DA's with philosophical jargon. It really isn't too hard to teach kritiks as they are intended. I've done it - my teams get it. I don't ever tell them to approach it like a DA in any meaningful sense - aside from defeating or turning links is a good thing. One of the problems is there are a lot of debaters with a couple of years' experience who are trying to explain kritiks and don't have the patience of teachers. The goal in teaching something to a student isn't to hear them say, "Oh, i get it" but to actually help them get it the correct way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on top.... if understanding is the first step and that is the role of the k, and fiat is allusory, why cant the perm solve? spread an understanding of x implication, but retain fiat for purposes of this debate. i mean, duh, fiat isnt real, but it's neccessary to have a debate about policy. but, even if the k has real world effects, that ballot is only defensive, it only prevents said imaginary action from taking place. it does nothing to change minds of people out of round. sure, k's have lost and genocide and imperialism continues, but on the opposite end, k's have won and still nothing has been done. it only affects the people in the room, and in that sense, while we make take it out of the round, it only has in round implications

 

 

now onto the bottom, ok so the k is an advocacy, when run as a whole. but can the link/implication not function alone as a turn? obviously, work would have to be put into animating a scenario, but i feel it can be done.

i dont know, i guess the issue here is that, while the k may be interesting and/or true, i think it is in the wrong forum unless the policy implications are discussed... otherwise how does it test the proposed policy? and articulating links really doesnt discuss the policy implications, it just says that your plan is x.

bottom line, the k is an argument, its a tool, used to win debates, regardless of what out of round advocacies debaters hold. in round thats the only way it functions, why else would anyone run it?

 

i still dont think you understand what i mean by mechanics... link turn, impact turn, perm. These are all things that a new debater gains comfort with, usually, in the context of da's and cp's. im not saying that the k shouldnt be taught as an advocacy ("correctly"), i'm saying why avoid the similarities? i take a stance against your marginalizations of the similarities, not the stress of the differences.

 

so i leave you with this challenge. if you really think that all of these arguments have real world implications, and that you have talent in teaching the k the "correct way," write an article on teaching the k to novice debaters.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The policy implications of a kritik occur at the point of decision making and not implementation. That is why a perm can't solve. Again, this is part of the framework debate. If the neg team running K loses their framework, all that is left is how the plan operates. If they win their framework, how the plan operates is irrelevant; all that matters is whose discourse or thinking is superior.

 

Teaching novices that kritiks are about policy implications is showing them a tree and ignoring the forest. Hell, you can win a link and an implication in that way and still lose the debate by a mile. It's like teaching them to accept aff's definitions in a topicality debate; sure, you can win that aff fails to meet their own def. It doesn't make sense to give up the biggest piece of offense the argument posesses. That offense is A-priori consideration; the kritik is considered before the plan.

 

And there is no need for me to write an article on teaching K's to novices. The problem isn't with the people who read the available lit - it's with the people who got their understanding from their predecessors on the debate team and are passing it on. I've seen teams run a discursive colonialism K alongside the China CP this year. Tell me those kids have even a fleeting idea what the K is about. There is simply no way their coach, whom I know, told them that was consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is no need for me to write an article on teaching K's to novices. The problem isn't with the people who read the available lit - it's with the people who got their understanding from their predecessors on the debate team and are passing it on. I've seen teams run a discursive colonialism K alongside the China CP this year. Tell me those kids have even a fleeting idea what the K is about. There is simply no way their coach, whom I know, told them that was consistent.

 

 

How typical of a k-debater, all talk, no action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How typical of a k-debater, all talk, no action.
I never debated a K in my life...they were barely being used in college when I finished high school.

 

And never mind it's unresponsive of the warrant ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle, you are pretty obviously missing the point of what a K is, and what it argues. Why would a K test a policy? That's not what it is for at all. As Brett has been carefully explaining to you in plain English, a kritik is an argument that one decision making framework is bad, and potentially suggests a better one that we should use instead as a rationale for rejecting the affirmative plan and the framework it is proposed under. If you run an affirmative this year about giving assistance to Africa, and the negative runs a Fem IR K, then the negative is suggesting that the decision-making framework you are using to decide questions of policy is fundamentally flawed, because it treats the entire scope of epistemology as oppositional dyads which are "natural" and distinct. You say "perm." That doesn't work, you can't accept and reject that epistemological choice. You say "compare this to my policy level stuff." That doesn't work, because you can't evaluate things at the policy level without accepting your framework, which the K gives reasons to reject. Fiat is irrelevant to this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyle, you are pretty obviously missing the point of what a K is, and what it argues. Why would a K test a policy? That's not what it is for at all.

 

no, i understood what he was saying.

 

But,

1) your response is exactly why i said they are illigit. WRONG FORUM!

2) my arg was that if it fails to test the policy, it does not justify voting against the aff. but i'll get to that down here.

 

As Brett has been carefully explaining to you in plain English, a kritik is an argument that one decision making framework is bad, and potentially suggests a better one that we should use instead as a rationale for rejecting the affirmative plan and the framework it is proposed under. If you run an affirmative this year about giving assistance to Africa, and the negative runs a Fem IR K, then the negative is suggesting that the decision-making framework you are using to decide questions of policy is fundamentally flawed, because it treats the entire scope of epistemology as oppositional dyads which are "natural" and distinct. You say "perm." That doesn't work, you can't accept and reject that epistemological choice. You say "compare this to my policy level stuff." That doesn't work, because you can't evaluate things at the policy level without accepting your framework, which the K gives reasons to reject. Fiat is irrelevant to this.

 

ok there are a couple of concerns i have here:

1, the perm...wrong again, my perm was not simply do both. brett says, understanding first (i.e. k, before the policy and the fw its dependent upon, which is a fiat based interp). i say ok, spread understanding via discussion that we have had, but retain fiat (or fw, which ever) for purposes of maintaing the round. this means that the perm is do both, idk, in different worlds.

 

2, the nature of a k - brett and i agree k is an advocacy. advocacy is multi-faceted, it has a reason to reject aff (ie the link/imp) and the alternative to aff. when you propose it as a fw, and not an advocacy, it includes no reason to vote neg.... all it would say at that point is your fw (not you policy) is bad, prefer x fw. ok... so what? that means the aff can clairfy its impacts within your fw. this is why it needs to test the policy if it is going to justify a neg ballot. it needs to show why the plan is bad, not the fw. in that sense, a legit k would say ur plan increases likelyhood of x, which is bad, heres an alt that solves this (and maybe the case too). thats what im saying about policy implications, not that it has to be comparitive to my policy stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, now I have a little more time, since this seminar is a little slow today. I find it entertaining that a class about Congress can't seem to get anything done.

 

Let's first talk about your arguments within the example of a Fem IR K and in general.

 

First, your answers to Fem IR all link you back in. You say wrong forum, which draws an epistemological distinction between rightness and wrongness, and priveledges one perspective so that the other can be marginalized. That's bad, it's the K's link. It's also a bad argument because it's not responsive. You don't provide any reason why it's not the right forum, and it directly tests the reasoning the affirmative uses in order to advance a policy. If you don't answer it, then you lose, because the negative will have won that your framework is bad, and perpetuates the problems of the SQ that your case purports to attempt to solve. That's why your second argument is non-responsive, too. It does test the affirmative, it tests not only the way the policy you proffer is productive or not, it also tests the underlying presumptions of the traditions you call upon in order to advocate it. If epistemological dyads are bad, and you are using them to argue in favor of a policy, that is a reason to reject your advocacy.

 

Second, your perm still fails. If Brett's argument is "fiat based," it is only because it has been talked about as such. That's a link to the K itself - pre/post is an epistemological dyad, one side of which you are attempting to marginalize to benefit the other. Also, it clearly doesn't have to be about fiat. The affirmative presents a policy and a way to evaluate questions about that policy. Your permutation says that we should use and abandon dyads, and that they are and are not productive. It says that the negative is right about your framework being undesireable, but that we should do plan regardless. If you want to permute a K, you need a better perm than this.

 

Third, if you think it presents no reason to vote neg, then you've not paid very close attention to the 1NC. The affirmative presents a plan and a way to evaluate the plan. The negative provides arguments for what that plan, and that way of evaluting questions, are both undesireable. Specifically in terms of this example, the negative says that doing plan will prop up existing problemative power structures in the international world, and that epistemoligical justifications you use to make your advocacy are dyadic and undesireable. That means that the affirmative will lose, because both plan and the advocacy of it in the round are problematic. When an alternative is offered, it is not an alternative action, it is an alternative way of evaluating questions about the plan - like rejecting epistemological dyads in favor of a more socially just epistemology. So, your argument that it needs to test the policy is not very compelling, because it does test the policy, and it tests your test of the policy. Saying that the alternative to the K has to solve the case in order to get a negative ballot is going way too far. The K tests your test, but it also demonstrates that the problems you are trying to solve are actually a product of your epistemology. The alternative doesn't solve your case, it makes it irrelevant by solving the actual problem and barring your undesireable proposal. But even if the K doesn't so that, the neg can still easily win because they will undercut your ability to respond, like what happened here. You have to win that your framework is good in order to make any other argument. Saying things like the K has to solve case links you back in by supporting the existing epistemological power structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually of the belief that a properly run Kritik cannot be permuted. (Or it is irrelevant to try) To effectively permute a kritik, the opposition (we should drop the whole aff-neg thing) must defeat the idea they are somehow guilty of the K. If they win this argument, the K becomes irrelevant. If the opposition is guilty of the bad thinking, language or assumption of the kritik, adopting their other positions and accepting the kritik are contradictory acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not always the case. There are often ways to bridge the gap between one framework and antoher, they just have to be much more specific that "do both" with some half-hearted explanation of how that functions.

 

For example, if the negative runs a criticism based in critical IR, and argues that the affrirmative uses realist justifications for policy choices and that is bad because it promotes a hegemonic disccourse, the affirmative could permute to do plan under a constructivist framework, which accepts the core assumptions that realism makes about the world, but implements the aims of critical theory with a more middle-ground approach. Since constructivism is a critical IR - based theory, and because it accepts (and relies on) the assumptions the critical IR K of the affirmative rejects, it functions as a very effective permutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To accept a constructivist approach, is it not necessary to drop the use of nations as actors? I get that there are constructivists who deny this, but it seems to me (with my albeit limited understanding of critical IR) contradictory to the central theme of the position. How can one state act upon another without carrying its cultural norms with it? Once it carries those norms, the action links back to the central criticism, does it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more off topic, but no, it is not neccesary to desert nation-states in order to do constructivism. In fact, you can't drop states and do constructivism, because it accepts the same five givens on the international system - that is is anarchic, populated by rational and unitary acting states with offensive military power, these states can never be sure about the intents of other states, are survival motivated, and act strategically. Mearshimer and Wendt agree on those five things, while critical theorists who are not constructivists do not. Constructivists belief that these five things are true as a result of policy choices and do not have to be true naturally. Realists believe these things are true because it cannot be any other way. Constructivism holds that everything, even material structures, are social structures. They have an interest in promoting social change, but they pursue it by attempting to explain how seemingly natural things, like Mearshiemer's five assumptions about the international system, are actually the results of policy choices. To analyze the social construction of international politics is to analyze how processes of interactions produce and reproduce the social structure – cooperative or conflictual – that shape actors’ identities and interests and the significance of their material contexts (and therefore behaviors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I have some reading to do. While constructivism certainly upholds the existence of nation-states, it seems at odds with the legitimacy of those nations' actions upon the internal affairs of other nations, as any topical plan (this year) is wont to do. I suppose, rtfm would be a worthy response to that. Thanks for helping me out on that - you clearly have this critical IR stuff down pat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disregard anything i said on cross-x today, some bitch got on my computer while i was away, and since i was logged on, they fucked around on my account

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...