Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stupidboy103

running multiple Ks

Recommended Posts

for example if i run a k on terrortalk, along with a k on security discourse, and some other discourse K. then could i use just one alternative text like :"reject the aff discourse" to encompass all of the K's and make it function as one alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for example if i run a k on terrortalk, along with a k on security discourse, and some other discourse K. then could i use just one alternative text like :"reject the aff discourse" to encompass all of the K's and make it function as one alternative?

 

If you are using many different Ks that all have the same alt, you can of course use only one alt. This may or may not be strategic, or the best way to present the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uuuuh....

what?

 

If it is not strategic or the best way to present the information then...by a process of logical conclusions...it would not be a good idea.

 

If all three kritiks have the same alternatives, then the affirmative can just impact turn the alternative for eight minutes. Also I would assume the literature for the different authors would not be a true mixture of arguments. I would also believe that defending conditionality good is easier than having to deal with those eight minutes of impact turns.

 

Also, you would need to ask yourself this: what is strategic about doing what you are asking? if you want to make them three separate arguments with three separate link stories then having three separate alternatives is probably good. Now if you read one kritik in the 1NC (terror Talk) and in the block you read new link stories (security discourse) then THAT is strategic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would try not to run 2 alternatives, however. And if you do run 2 alternatives, I might make one just reject.

 

The other alternative is to just run the two critiques together as one K with 2 different arguments. Its like running 2 violations on the same shell.

• And it makes the alt. debate a lot smoother + it means you don't have to run 30 sec. of another alternative.

• Also it makes the perm debate smoother. If you have 2 perms on each flow thats just a pain.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, you can combine them but i wouldnt suggest it. the purpose of the 1NC is to have a variety of arguments so the 2AC will use up some prep, but if you have 3 ks with the same alt they can bunch it and dump it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is over exaggerating this.

 

90% of the time you critique has links that are not "your authors" links.

 

example, when reading cap bad you could read: identity politics, fear of death and security discourse all as links/impacts and still have "do nothing" as solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, you can combine them but i wouldnt suggest it. the purpose of the 1NC is to have a variety of arguments so the 2AC will use up some prep, but if you have 3 ks with the same alt they can bunch it and dump it....
It's not that simple. To use nathan's approach, let's say we have a 1nc K on discourse, presented in two observations - one for terror talk and the other for securitization. Even if the singular alt is to reject affirmative discourse, you need to address both the terror talk and the securitization to defeat the overall position. One or the other will be sufficient to win the round, assuming the alt is defended.

 

I wouldn't necessarily suggest this strategy, but I see no reason it can't work. If you're going to try this, your 2n needs to have some serious blocks on the alternative and perm arguments. Further, I would guess its only potential benefit is in a discursive framework. Ontological and epistimological kritiks generally require independent alts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in reality, there are only about 4-5 genre's alternatives that debaters read (do nothing, reject 'x' discourse, reject the state, rethink thinking) and then all your "endorse this specific methodology" arguments but those are not alternatives that could be used for the sake of discussion.

 

team's ALWAYS have to worry about aff's saying "alt bad" for 'x' minutes, it's not a reason to not read the K, it's a reason to write good blocks.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would try not to run 2 alternatives, however. And if you do run 2 alternatives, I might make one just reject.

 

The other alternative is to just run the two critiques together as one K with 2 different arguments. Its like running 2 violations on the same shell.

• And it makes the alt. debate a lot smoother + it means you don't have to run 30 sec. of another alternative.

• Also it makes the perm debate smoother. If you have 2 perms on each flow thats just a pain.

 

 

hey that is not a standard to evalute whether running one alt is better or 2 is better.

 

1. i would just make one reject....what the hell does that mean. if anything you would just open yourself up to a really good theory argument agaisnt this none existant alternative...reject... if you run 2 alterantives that leaves them less time to put offense on both....which what you want to avoid..as the negative it is easier to win theory debates because you just have to prove that what you are doing isnt that bad...and it wont destroy debate...2 alts isnt that bad....

 

2.i dont know what alt debate beening smoother means if it means that you get spend 9 minutes of a 2nc answering impact turns then maybe that is really really ..smooth i would find that speech not only hard but un doable....and before you say your framework arguments outweigh your framework arguments dont matter if your alternative is a bad idea..

 

3.yeah the perm debate is smoother because it can explode into what ever because the...fucking alternative is vague as shit i think that justifies perm do the alterantive because the nature of the alternative is ridiculous. if the goal of having 1 alt was to avoid the theory debate then you would just be negating that purpose when it came to perms....people would run all sorts a shit and just justify it on the vaguenss flow..and before you say the neg wins theory debates easier...if there mutliple theories thats harder to perp for the 2nr then the 2ar its better to just have to debate...condo...

 

 

 

4. most importnalty dont listen to any who tells you to run multiple ks together a good team will find a way to just internal link turn one of your lin karguments and solve them all back with the permutation.....also this is probably why k debate is bad because you have these nebulusly bad ks that dont make anysense and nobody wants to here. a k should be will written and like a story that can be applied to the logic behind the affirmative. when you run MULTIPLE LINK STORIES THAT IS JUST A GIANT SHIT PILE THAT BRINGS FORTH MEMORIES OF PUKE AND AIDS VIRUS....YOU ARE ALL STUPID AND WRONG IF YOU RUN MUTLIPLE KS TOGETHER...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanna let you now before i address anything that your grammar is atrocious, even compared to mine.

 

That being said....

1. i would just make one reject....what the hell does that mean. if anything you would just open yourself up to a really good theory argument agaisnt this none existant alternative...reject... if you run 2 alterantives that leaves them less time to put offense on both....which what you want to avoid..as the negative it is easier to win theory debates because you just have to prove that what you are doing isnt that bad...and it wont destroy debate...2 alts isnt that bad....

 

 

"reject" is an alternative

 

aff: ban blacks from america

neg: their language/plan is racist, reject racism - Bardn't.

aff: OH OH OH OH YOU DIDN'T READ AN ALT. NO IMPAX YO

2.i dont know what alt debate beening smoother means if it means that you get spend 9 minutes of a 2nc answering impact turns then maybe that is really really ..smooth i would find that speech not only hard but un doable....and before you say your framework arguments outweigh your framework arguments dont matter if your alternative is a bad idea..

 

A. the threat of impact turns are non-unique. that threat is always there.

 

B. lol @ "your framework arguments outweigh your framework arguments dont matter if your alternative is a bad idea"

 

3.yeah the perm debate is smoother because it can explode into what ever because the...fucking alternative is vague as shit i think that justifies perm do the alterantive because the nature of the alternative is ridiculous. if the goal of having 1 alt was to avoid the theory debate then you would just be negating that purpose when it came to perms....people would run all sorts a shit and just justify it on the vaguenss flow..and before you say the neg wins theory debates easier...if there mutliple theories thats harder to perp for the 2nr then the 2ar its better to just have to debate...condo.

 

perm do the alternative isn't a perm, first and foremost.

 

also, reject is still an alternative.

 

 

 

 

 

4. most importnalty dont listen to any who tells you to run multiple ks together a good team will find a way to just internal link turn one of your lin karguments and solve them all back with the permutation.....also this is probably why k debate is bad because you have these nebulusly bad ks that dont make anysense and nobody wants to here. a k should be will written and like a story that can be applied to the logic behind the affirmative. when you run MULTIPLE LINK STORIES THAT IS JUST A GIANT SHIT PILE THAT BRINGS FORTH MEMORIES OF PUKE AND AIDS VIRUS....YOU ARE ALL STUPID AND WRONG IF YOU RUN MUTLIPLE KS TOGETHER...

 

a. good teams win debates because they are....well, good. Give them baylor briefs or squirrel killers and they'll still win rounds.

 

b. non-unique: as i said above, critiques most of the time will encompass a few different methodologies into the link/impact debate anyway.

 

c. really, what is the warrant? because it's easier for the aff to turn? not really - it forces the affirmative to deal with the mechanics of the critique rather then spend more time on "realism guud". You screw up the "ID politics bad" arguments and spend time only on "fear of death =>" then you conceded a dis-ad to case/perm. You spend too much time on "ID ptx" and not enough time on the security discourse links, then you conceded a turn for the impact debate.

Edited by Karl Rove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...thats why reject isnt an alternative...because that is what allows affs to say no impact no alt because...alternatives are so shitty you have no idea what the hell they actually are doing and theres only a chance the affirmatives is a better idea....

 

2. if a kritik of bad language is run a stragey it should be rejected all together because it is necessary not saying the language bad and that the team believes that it is but its like..they should be rejected because of bad language..that is what most language ks are saying is bad.......so this was a terrible example

.....example was non sensical.

 

3. you dropped that reject would lead to vague alts debates....and vague alts debates when the alternative is vague..destroy any chance of a negative winning the round.

 

A. the threat of impact turns are non-unique. that threat is always there.

 

B. lol @ "your framework arguments outweigh your framework arguments dont matter if your alternative is a bad idea"

 

no you dont get it.

 

1. if they impact turn your alternative and say your alternative is a bad idea because it leads to violenc eand exclusion or whatever....then it doesnt matter if you win that ontology comes first because questioning ontology would lead to violence.....

 

2. this didnt answer my argument as to why answering 9 minutes of impact turns is easier then spliting it between 2 alternatives.and 2 ks where htey have to read condo bad and link and impact level arguments.....

a. if they dont put alot of offense on and alternative then you can extend it and gives worth to your link and impact arguments because there is a chance the alternative can solve for the negative mindset. ANSWERING OFFENSE IS HARDER...thats logic....

 

3. if you win external net benefits to your framework arguments then maybe can you ..... fathom...... saying framework out weighs but those net benefits would have to solve for bad parts of the aff or alt...aka counter permutations.....

 

3. perm do the plan then alt. is justified if the alternative is vague because its the only way to test whether alternative is really a good idea or seperate from the affirmative..because the alternative should be able to solve back any of the links the plan and the affirmative shouldnt be a net increase and theres only a chance case outweighs...

 

 

reject is a bad alternative for debate though....its is the most vague alternative allternative of all time..which makes it a moving target..because we could make 9 minutes of offense against the alternative and they could link out of it by reclafifing what the rejection means or saying thats not our kind of rejection. there is no strata to hold them to...

 

2. reject alternatives are what allow for bad policy interaction with the critism policy debaters dont respect us because they think people run shitty k arguments like statism with a rejection alternative if you interact with the topic there is only a chance that we will get better education and people wanting to engage our kritikisms......

Edited by Karl Rove
please don't double/tripple post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a. good teams win debates because they are....well, good. Give them baylor briefs or squirrel killers and they'll still win rounds.

 

1. good teams win debate rounds because they can exploit their opponents weaknesses like being able to recognize where they can internal link turn links into the k or having links internal link turn eachother because the philosophies interact.

2. good teams also will be able win vague alts theory...with this shitty argument

b. non-unique: as i said above, critiques most of the time will encompass a few different methodologies into the link/impact debate anyway.

 

1.BULL SHIT-...........running zizek and deleuze and guattari together would be a terrible idea bu the link level agress.right...this is what leads to terrible k rounds is this belief that shit can be mixed togehter this what leads to bad k files because nobody takes the time to explore literature this is what leads to me getting a headache having to judge these terrible high school kids.

 

 

c. really, what is the warrant? because it's easier for the aff to turn? not really - it forces the affirmative to deal with the mechanics of the critique rather then spend more time on "realism guud". You screw up the "ID politics bad" arguments and spend time only on "fear of death =>" then you conceded a dis-ad to case/perm. You spend too much time on "ID ptx" and not enough time on the security discourse links, then you conceded a turn for the impact debate.

 

 

1.........yeah but if the alternative is a bad idea who cares if they win that we lead to identity politics and if we are saying that identity politics leads to fear of death who cares.....thats why its easy to make logical arguments against these big stupid ks....

 

2. look k community as one of you i am trying to get you to do orginal research. if you go more indepth on researching you arguments instead of making generic stupid mash up arguments you will learn your shit better and you be able actually explain you answer to things......and why your view of the world is good for debate.....right now you dont know what that means

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was painful to read =/

 

 

...thats why reject isnt an alternative...because that is what allows affs to say no impact no alt because...alternatives are so shitty you have no idea what the hell they actually are doing and theres only a chance the affirmatives is a better idea....

 

 

no, reject IS an alternative.

 

how do you not know what they are doing? they are rejecting....

 

2. if a kritik of bad language is run a stragey it should be rejected all together because it is necessary not saying the language bad and that the team believes that it is but its like..they should be rejected because of bad language..that is what most language ks are saying is bad.......so this was a terrible example

.....example was non sensical.

 

wat?

3. you dropped that reject would lead to vague alts debates....and vague alts debates when the alternative is vague..destroy any chance of a negative winning the round.

 

how does "Reject" lead to vague alternatives?

 

no you dont get it.

 

o rly?

 

1. if they impact turn your alternative and say your alternative is a bad idea because it leads to violenc eand exclusion or whatever....then it doesnt matter if you win that ontology comes first because questioning ontology would lead to violence.....

 

framework operates outside of that buddy. "psychoanalysis => violence" is not "ontology leads to violence".

 

2. this didnt answer my argument as to why answering 9 minutes of impact turns is easier then spliting it between 2 alternatives.and 2 ks where htey have to read condo bad and link and impact level arguments.....

a. if they dont put alot of offense on and alternative then you can extend it and gives worth to your link and impact arguments because there is a chance the alternative can solve for the negative mindset. ANSWERING OFFENSE IS HARDER...thats logic....

 

wat?

 

3. if you win external net benefits to your framework arguments then maybe can you ..... fathom...... saying framework out weighs but those net benefits would have to solve for bad parts of the aff or alt...aka counter permutations.....

 

wat?

3. perm do the plan then alt. is justified if the alternative is vague because its the only way to test whether alternative is really a good idea or seperate from the affirmative..because the alternative should be able to solve back any of the links the plan and the affirmative shouldnt be a net increase and theres only a chance case outweighs...

 

again, how is "reject" a vague alternative.

 

also, wat?

 

reject is a bad alternative for debate though....its is the most vague alternative allternative of all time..which makes it a moving target..because we could make 9 minutes of offense against the alternative and they could link out of it by reclafifing what the rejection means or saying thats not our kind of rejection. there is no strata to hold them to...

 

"alternative alternative of all time". wat?

 

above as well.

 

2. reject alternatives are what allow for bad policy interaction with the critism policy debaters dont respect us because they think people run shitty k arguments like statism with a rejection alternative if you interact with the topic there is only a chance that we will get better education and people wanting to engage our kritikisms......

 

first of all, statism is by NO means a bad critique. You are out of your element.

 

also, wat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. good teams win debate rounds because they can exploit their opponents weaknesses like being able to recognize where they can internal link turn links into the k or having links internal link turn eachother because the philosophies interact.

 

 

2. good teams also will be able win vague alts theory...with this shitty argument

 

didn't answer my argument: good debaters are good because they recognize argument interaction. Even with bad evidence they'll win rounds. Your argument doesn't prevent/cause that.

 

1.BULL SHIT-...........running zizek and deleuze and guattari together would be a terrible idea bu the link level agress.right...this is what leads to terrible k rounds is this belief that shit can be mixed togehter this what leads to bad k files because nobody takes the time to explore literature this is what leads to me getting a headache having to judge these terrible high school kids.

 

i think your headache comes from you reading what you post, not because of your lack of critique lit...well, maybe it's both.

 

you could deff read zizek/d&g together yo.

 

a. the affirmative is a prescribed solution inside the current political coordinates that support/lead to more capitalism/prevents cap from being questioned.

 

zizek 2

 

b. the fear the embedded to prevent mass violence/destruction is another tool of the state. prevents revolutionary thought.

zizek '4

 

c. roll the dice, live life. take the risk of the aff.

 

d&g.

 

neat, huh?

 

teams will always read different link arguments. This is why Spanos/zizek/dillon/campbell are used on EVERY topic.

 

 

1.........yeah but if the alternative is a bad idea who cares if they win that we lead to identity politics and if we are saying that identity politics leads to fear of death who cares.....thats why its easy to make logical arguments against these big stupid ks....

 

your generic "realism solves war" cards probably will lose to "identity based in pain prevents radical politics" evidence.

 

 

 

2. look k community as one of you i am trying to get you to do orginal research. if you go more indepth on researching you arguments instead of making generic stupid mash up arguments you will learn your shit better and you be able actually explain you answer to things......and why your view of the world is good for debate.....right now you dont know what that means

 

lol. you're right. because reading the same "winners-win" link evidence on politics is just OH SO ORIGINAL.

 

if you excuse me, aside from wanting to gauge my eyes out, i need to go cut some "fascism low now" uniqueness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..........zizek basis his theories of why capitalism is bad using oedipus as the model for which capitalism creates bad ways of desiring..and says we have to destroy this desire of capitalism...

 

that links into dng because....dng say taht when you allow for rigid modes of thinking like capitalism is always bad you allow for a micro fascism over teh way you think because you are stuck in the world where capitalism is always bad......

 

 

there alternative is to allow for new possiblities and new interaction to occur by re orienting ourselves in a way thats not fascists where we allow connections to occur everywhere

 

.....this impact turns zizek......

 

.......this is why you shouldnt run ks together...

 

 

you dont even know about the literature your talking about this links back into my bad k debate arguments....

 

and your belief that policy debate is always bad is just as fascist as any politics debater...policy isnt a bad kind of debate its only when policy debatesr believe that other forms of debate dont matter that they become fascists and want to exclude those debates voices to achieve there final vision of debate...i dont understand why you dont do that when you say that politics debate is bad for debate..you are being just as fascist as a policy hack...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good debaters would see the main strategic flaw in reading this k...that you can impact turn the alt...for 8 minutes...and nothing else matters.....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..........zizek basis his theories of why capitalism is bad using oedipus as the model for which capitalism creates bad ways of desiring..and says we have to destroy this desire of capitalism...

 

that links into dng because....dng say taht when you allow for rigid modes of thinking like capitalism is always bad you allow for a micro fascism over teh way you think because you are stuck in the world where capitalism is always bad......

 

 

there alternative is to allow for new possiblities and new interaction to occur by re orienting ourselves in a way thats not fascists where we allow connections to occur everywhere

 

.....this impact turns zizek......

 

.......this is why you shouldnt run ks together...

 

 

you dont even know about the literature your talking about this links back into my bad k debate arguments....

 

and your belief that policy debate is always bad is just as fascist as any politics debater...policy isnt a bad kind of debate its only when policy debatesr believe that other forms of debate dont matter that they become fascists and want to exclude those debates voices to achieve there final vision of debate...i dont understand why you dont do that when you say that politics debate is bad for debate..you are being just as fascist as a policy hack...

 

whats with all the ellipses? how much time past while you were writing this?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if all kritikal arguments can function under the same frame work, then could you just provide one alternative that could "solve" the K?

 

 

Missouri State Matt bostick and Michael Mapes rolled arguements like this to the NDT and got a first round and cleared and almost every national tournament a few years ago. They were reading cards from a few different K's in the 1nc and then would expand based one your 2ac answers in the block and just got for one specific part of the K.

 

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whats with all the ellipses? how much time past while you were writing this?

dude you have no idea how much time passes in my daily life when i write you dont lean like me

 

2. this is not aimed at you lewis just a general comment. are you michael mapes or malcom gordon no you aint which means you dont know how to go for those arguments like they do, just because malcom could do it is not a good standard malcom was a freaking haus as a debater you cant just do things like him.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...