Jump to content
bob hope

How do you Answer Ks of T

Recommended Posts

win that topicality (and other procedural issues) should be viewed in vacuums away from criticisms etc.. the phrase you'll hear people use is "if we win this debate never should have happened we should win the ballot regardless of criticisms"

 

win exclusion is inevitable - some people are faster, some people are smarter, there are deaf people, blind people, mute people, etc., who can't participate; debate is a largely male-dominated activity; and so on and so on

 

and read shively or ignateiff (sp?). the shively cards are about why limits are necessary to meaningful discourse. the ignateiff evidence criticizes abstract theories and says certain limits and applications of theory are necessary.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some of the pretty easy to make arguments are saying things like:

 

1. exclusion inevitable in debate - choosing which arguments to make excludes certain arguemnts and the decision excludes one team from winning

 

2. turn - saying our discourse should be "rejected" because we silence your "discourse" is an exclusion in and of itself

 

3. topical version of your case - tell them they can read their aff just make it topical

 

4. discourse has already happened - if their discourse arguments are true the impact they would have has already happened post-1AC

 

 

those are just some generic ones...you might want to get some cards on that as well, check camp files

 

EDIT: and what rett said (i started typing before i saw his post) lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you typically answer the typical silencing voices
No "silencing" required to vote Neg. Aff can say whatever they like, they just aren't entitled to victory if their plan is demonstrably non-topical. Neg will be more than happy to engage in an in-depth discussion of Aff's ideas as soon as the judge signs a Negative ballot. Furthermore, if you are so inclined, there is also the Turn: Aff's position is an attempt to silence US...
limits bad
This is just a personal preference, but I'd run counter-warrants (multiple instances of resolutional action being undesirable), and claim their "limits bad" analysis applies to any attempt by them to claim their advocacy is limited only to their plan and not the resolution as a whole...
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. agreeing on a topic and venue is key to the actavism the aff claims to acces. for exapmle it would look prety bad for a black rights group to bust in on a session in congress, and try to spread there measage. congress would throw them out, there movment would look silly, and no one would take them sseriously. just like outside of debate, you should claim that the aff team has to be acountable for the space in which there atavism would ocure. showing up at a policy debate and not debating within the permatures turns the actavist education they are trying to acces.

 

2. theres no impact. the k of T will for the most part claim you are excluding there discourse. the only impact is education. just prove that resolutonal limits will internal link into the actavist education they acces (ie. theres a topical version of your aff)

 

3. the education you uphold is more imprtant then the education excluded. there k of T will teach you to usurp the law. most of us outside of debate will not activly participate in breaking the law. win your interp allows for a discuion of policys that will ecucate us on how to produce effective policys to stop the bad shit the not topical aff claims to solve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verweijj and Dawson '03 indicates neccessity of specificity, and limits, as Public Health as an express legal definition; this def shapes legitimate policy options in real world scenarios.

 

Rathusian Interp; Although challenged as Arbitrary/Normative, provides pre-emptive ev to those kind of Kriticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit to our former assistant coach Evan Clemens for writing most of this. It's supposed to be an overview for norm, but the majority of the arguments in there still apply.

 

There are multiple reasons to prefer an activity focused on discussion of the topic. The biggest is that it is predictable and fair. There are only a few guiding lights in debate: time constraints and the resolution. When we stop debating about the resolutional question, we cease fair debate. Without resolutional basis for the framework of debate, we cannot know whether to wear dashing clothes one or to bring pickets and flyers to the next or our dance shoes to the next. Since the resolution sets the framework of debate, it is really silly to debate about the archaic question "is pretending to be the federal government the best way to debate." It is - unless they change the resolutions to something like "High schoolers should participate in local activism doing X. Where would that leave debaters? The only fair form of debate is plan yes or no. They would have us reject the wording of the resolution because they lead to coffee shop intellectualism. While this may be true, the benefits to the competitive game of debate far outweigh any stifling of true activism that may occur. Without the competitive driving force of debate (and fairness is a prerequisite for a successful competitive activity) high schoolers would never have researched the environment, international law, or health care in the first place. Never causing any change. The very fact that resolutional debate causes education about the topic leads to activism in a very real sense. The argument that our fake debates about government action that never happens make us less activist is empirically denied. It is sometimes hard to notice the side effects of debate, because it isn't the round itself that determines our activism. It is switch side debating, research, and talking fast that make us good activists. If we decide to rip down the very foundation of debate (the resolution), we would probably be causing even more apathy and crushing a vital breeding ground of youth activism. We cannot lose focus of the broader picture of debate. The debate round is not the activism (and shouldn't be), but the whole of debate creates intelligent activists. Indeed, it is necessary that the round does not become the focus of activism, for then we have sacrificed the activity itself. We lose its fairness, its competitive appeal, and its fun. Debaters do not join the activity to convince an audience of judges to join them in some activist movement. It is an inappropriate forum for that activity. It is a great forum, however, for learning about current issues, When debating about the framework, it is useful to ask yourself "why do I participate in this activity - be it as a competitor or judge?" The answers above mean you could only want to preserve fair and predictable debate. The answers above mean you could only want resolutional debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to view topicality debates in an offense/defense paradigm. there are some pretty simple ways to get out of these criticisms of topicality without having to get into the warrants of their cards if you don't have better ones.

 

 

Give an overview at the top of T that includes the following

 

1. Case list

 

2. Evaluate plan in a vacuum

 

3. Topical version of their aff

 

4. If there's no T version, it proves the aff is neg CP ground.

 

 

3 and 4 offer you a reason why their K isn't offense because under your interp, you can talk about all the shit they say you silence, just either as a fair-er aff or when they're neg.

 

 

A lot of these K's come down to quasi-education debates just like normal counterinterps. This is where you can say the following.

 

1. Education is inevitable--i can learn about walrus poaching or whatever their aff is outside of the debate, but i can only learn HOW TO DEBATE it in the debate round.

 

2. Make the distinction between "education" and debate education--This turns their K, because absent a fair way to engage their aff, they are creating a classroom environment in which they are TEACHING you and not debating you. This is a bad form or opressive education which their authors probably disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be fair to point out (although this is defensive) that none of their authors assume CX academic debate. Their authors may be very right when it comes to real world discussion-- we shouldn't limit freedom of speech. That's indeed a bad thing. But I doubt their authors are trying to indict academic debate on a specified topic carried out by a bunch of teenagers in a competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple.

Don't run T.

 

the above is all good advice. I dont know if anyone mentioned this, but in a world without topicality, debate collapses because there is no limit on what can be run. This means that limits are needed for any intellectual discussion to take place. You control the uniqueness. There is only a risk of both traditional policy and critical projects like their aff losing their forum.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the above is all good advice. I dont know if anyone mentioned this, but in a world without topicality, debate collapses because there is no limit on what can be run. This means that limits are needed for any intellectual discussion to take place. You control the uniqueness. There is only a risk of both traditional policy and critical projects like their aff losing their forum.

 

I don't think this is the most offensive argument becuase more than likely you won't be able to weigh "collapse of debate" impacts on T usually because of the aff's ability to weigh counter-interps such as aff then T. I think the best thing is not to run T against K aff's - unless your a K hack and plan on going for T in the 2AR, I think it usually just hurts you on the framework debate in general and also makes the 2AR incredibly easy by winning framework comes first.

 

Also, most K teams will argue that they control uniqueness because there's only a risk of losing critical education in neg's framework - where as their interp. doesn't exclude a particular just allows for both. That means your limit arguments better be very specific and well warranted. But like I said, don't run T unless you plan on going for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NoSxp,

how is "aff then T" a counter-interp? and won't it be relatively easy for the negative to get really good reasons as to why topicality comes before the affirmatve, to view the plan in a vaccum, and/or that T comes before all other flows

 

I have no qualms about going 5 minutes on T in the 2NR if I'm going for T.

 

"most K teams will argue that they control uniqueness because there's only a risk of losing critical education in neg's framework - where as their interp. doesn't exclude a particular just allows for both. That means your limit arguments better be very specific and well warranted." can you explain this to me?

why if there's a Topical version of the aff are they better and even if their interp allows for both doesn't that put them behind on the standards debate and competing interps in general?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the above is all good advice. I dont know if anyone mentioned this, but in a world without topicality, debate collapses because there is no limit on what can be run. This means that limits are needed for any intellectual discussion to take place. You control the uniqueness. There is only a risk of both traditional policy and critical projects like their aff losing their forum.

 

and?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you Answer Ks of T February 28th, 2008 12:18 AM That's all debatable

 

-Thanks for the neg rep. No shit sherlock, everything is debateable, thats why these are arguments ran at a debate tournament. The post asked for answers to Ks of T, i named some. Leave your fucking name next time.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, what are some possible answers for a K of T that essentially argues that capitalism has structured the current system and that our T interpretation is not only capitalist (apparently because it said the WHO in it (not from the WHO though)) and that T in general is capitalist and should not be evaluated (or something to that extent). I thought it was ridiculous, but we weren't going for T anyways (so it accomplished the timeskew).

 

I fear I may be misrepresenting the T, but essentially it was a Marxist K of T, so yeah, any advice for such Ks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you run t as a time skew I don't feel sorry for you when the aff. turns it and sticks you with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you run t as a time skew I don't feel sorry for you when the aff. turns it and sticks you with it.

 

We could have gone for it if we wanted to answer the K. The AFF made up an interp on the spot and said it was ok because it wasn't capitalist. I mean, they really violated our interpretation and we had round-winning standards to access. I mean, if I knew how to answer their K of it decently, I could have easily gone for it in the block (they'd no-linked a D/A and wouldn't defend the plan post-fiat or something like that, so we had threads for an abuse story).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, what are some possible answers for a K of T that essentially argues that capitalism has structured the current system and that our T interpretation is not only capitalist (apparently because it said the WHO in it (not from the WHO though)) and that T in general is capitalist and should not be evaluated (or something to that extent). I thought it was ridiculous, but we weren't going for T anyways (so it accomplished the timeskew).

 

I fear I may be misrepresenting the T, but essentially it was a Marxist K of T, so yeah, any advice for such Ks?

 

I'd assume you are coming from a zizekian perceptive on language and his criticism of how language is part of our ideological understanding of the "world".

 

If that's the case, you should make arguments that say the reasons that language has problems is because of our changing interpretation of rules/conventions/treaties/etc./etc.

 

Stravie makes an argument in his commonly read book that a strict interpretation of language can be used to better understand lacanian ethics. (which is cool in a way that maybe topicality functions as a criticism of the affirmative and is the alternative to their mode of thought.)

 

Oh yea, cap good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(A/T) Xander: 2 things:

 

1. If the team is prepped on the cap/zizek debate, cap good is only a good idea if you're ready to dig your heels in deep. I don't know any (successful) cap debaters who aren't happy to engage in the cap good/bad debate, and a competent cap debater will make carded turns to every cap good impact and turn them into neg impacts. If you let them, most cap teams will collapse the debate to cap good/bad ASAP. I say this as a cap debater.

 

2. Who is Stravie? Are you referring to Stavrakakis, or is this some other author I'm not familiar with? If so, cites please!

 

Anyway... If their only "T is capitalist" link is that your card mentions the WHO, you should no link the shit out of that. I imagine it's more nuanced. Xander's comments are premised on it being based on a Lacanian Marxist perspective a la Zizek, which sounds likely. If that's the case, it would help to know what specific arguments about language they were making. There are many ways to defend T from a Lacanian perspective. According to Lacan, words only have meaning as part of a 'web of meaning' by being linked to other words. Reading definitions on T is a perfect example of this - you explain what one word means by relating it to the words in your evidence. There are a few ways to utilise this; in the past, I've articulated it with some success as a turn by saying the structure of T is inevitable in our unconscious, any attempt to eliminate T is simply disavowal, explictly highlighting this process is the fundamental role of the analyst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you typically answer the typical silencing voices, limits bad, and other ways teams kritik Topicality?

 

OSPEC... that was easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
win that topicality (and other procedural issues) should be viewed in vacuums away from criticisms etc.. the phrase you'll hear people use is "if we win this debate never should have happened we should win the ballot regardless of criticisms"

 

win exclusion is inevitable - some people are faster, some people are smarter, there are deaf people, blind people, mute people, etc., who can't participate; debate is a largely male-dominated activity; and so on and so on

 

and read shively or ignateiff (sp?). the shively cards are about why limits are necessary to meaningful discourse. the ignateiff evidence criticizes abstract theories and says certain limits and applications of theory are necessary.

Yo Rett can you hit me up with that Shively card or the Ignatieff card? Thanks

Or a cite so i can find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, what are some possible answers for a K of T that essentially argues that capitalism has structured the current system and that our T interpretation is not only capitalist (apparently because it said the WHO in it (not from the WHO though)) and that T in general is capitalist and should not be evaluated (or something to that extent). I thought it was ridiculous, but we weren't going for T anyways (so it accomplished the timeskew).

 

I fear I may be misrepresenting the T, but essentially it was a Marxist K of T, so yeah, any advice for such Ks?

 

1) Major defense: Agreed upon notions of terms are a pre-requisite to dialectical engagement.

2) No impact - So what if T is "capitalist" if you can win reason why it is still key or beneficial for debate. (IE - the particular instance of T serving a good purpose proves why their generic arguments don't apply).

3) A generic argument about why the Aff links to capitalism as well/reinforces the State (assuming they aren't advocating the Rev).

 

Given a broader understanding of what the affirmative was in this particular round I could also think of more nuanced/offensive arguments.

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...