Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
deathrow93

K= Non-Unique disad

Recommended Posts

i am a novice debater and am currently trying to learn K's some of the people i have talked to about kritiks advocate that i should think of a K as a non-unique disad but i watched the DDI lectures and read previous cross-x posts and from what i understand this statement is false in that a DA criticizes in a way what the aff advocates in round while a kritik is a criticism against the pre-assumptions of the affirmative that lead them to run they case they do thus a k is not a non-unique disad at all but its own seperate entity.

 

my question is, is my interpretation correct or is the view of my instructors correct?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DA = Implementing the plan causes something absolutely horrible to happen. Needs to be rejected based on this nightmare to avoid it at ALL COSTS.

 

K = The underlying assumption that the affirmative makes in order to present their plan (or that is contained in their plan/plan perpetuates) is wrong and must be rejected no matter how any of the args in the rest of the round pan out. They are morally wrong, call them on it.

 

A non-unique DA is a turn, really. Also heard them called linear DAs. A K is a DA without a U, but you also add an alternative to it. Alternative is something that you advocate that avoids the impact presented and is (generally) mutually exclusive from the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ertrich123
i am a novice debater and am currently trying to learn K's some of the people i have talked to about kritiks advocate that i should think of a K as a non-unique disad but i watched the DDI lectures and read previous cross-x posts and from what i understand this statement is false in that a DA criticizes in a way what the aff advocates in round while a kritik is a criticism against the pre-assumptions of the affirmative that lead them to run they case they do thus a k is not a non-unique disad at all but its own seperate entity.

 

my question is, is my interpretation correct or is the view of my instructors correct?

The negative most times will argue the kritik turns the case i.e capitalism causes war, those are terminally non unique because capitalism has existed for 100's of years and it hasn't caused extinction, so that answers what you said above. But the rest or the kritik isn't and it would be irrelevant because your arguing the kritik solves the case i.e the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The negative most times will argue the kritik turns the case i.e capitalism causes war, those are terminally non unique because capitalism has existed for 100's of years and it hasn't caused extinction, so that answers what you said above. But the rest or the kritik isn't and it would be irrelevant because your arguing the kritik solves the case i.e the alternative.

 

um........no.

 

first a kritik alt usually solves for the k, not the case. usually, k alts are "reject the aff" or something of the sort.

what etrich is talking about would be reading a case turn with a counterplan of some sort.

 

also...k's dont turn case, except when they arent run correctly. A kritik will be about in-round discourse, how the presumptions you're using are bad, and therefore you should be voted down.

 

if the negs dont claim that discourse should be evaluated first, then the kritik turns into a non-unique disad. Also, if the negs fiat the alt, they are essentially conceding that discourse shouldnt be eval first, and then it also turns into a non-unique disad.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also...k's dont turn case, except when they arent run correctly. A kritik will be about in-round discourse, how the presumptions you're using are bad, and therefore you should be voted down.

 

if the negs dont claim that discourse should be evaluated first, then the kritik turns into a non-unique disad. Also, if the negs fiat the alt, they are essentially conceding that discourse shouldnt be eval first, and then it also turns into a non-unique disad.

 

Not all kritiks operate like that. Kritiks of discourse maybe, but you're limiting out any kritiks of ontology like Heidegger and a lot of other kritiks. And many of these kritiks definitely turn case - I.E., managerial ontology replicates environmental harms. And discourse kritiks can still turn case - take security - security discourse and threat construction causes the wars which the aff seeks to prevent. There are definitely cards on it.

 

Whether discourse is evaluated first has little to do with whether the Kritik is unique or not. As long as the alternative solves the K, it becomes unique within the round. The impact is still going to be systemic (usually), but that debate then moves to the impact level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all kritiks operate like that. Kritiks of discourse maybe, but you're limiting out any kritiks of ontology like Heidegger and a lot of other kritiks. And many of these kritiks definitely turn case - I.E., managerial ontology replicates environmental harms. And discourse kritiks can still turn case - take security - security discourse and threat construction causes the wars which the aff seeks to prevent. There are definitely cards on it.

 

Whether discourse is evaluated first has little to do with whether the Kritik is unique or not. As long as the alternative solves the K, it becomes unique within the round. The impact is still going to be systemic (usually), but that debate then moves to the impact level.

if you aren't evaluating discourse/ontology/epistomolgy/etc first, then you are essentially operating on the policy affimatives framework, thus rendering the k a non-unique disad.

 

also, you arent doing impact analaysis when running a k becuase its evaluated on a different level (ergo, k's dont turn case). when you start comparing post-fiat plan to alt, you are essentially conceding that discourse/ontology/epistomolgy/etc should not be evaluted first, thus weighing your non-unique impact against the affirmative plan. Good luck winning that an alt of "rejecting aff thought" or "do nothing" etc will outweigh the aff plan.

 

for example, take threat con.

 

1ac. something that fixes rels with russia, preventing nuke war

1nc. threat con

--link: the aff's plan constructs threats that may or may not exist

--impact: war

--alt: reject aff thought

--kritik turns the case

2ac:

--framework

---we get to weigh our impacts against those of the k

--they are conceding that ontology isnt the only that matters and you should vote on impacts via there kritik turns case card, and ergo operating on our framework (insert analysis)

--this kritik is really just a non-unique disad

----sure, we construct threats

----alot of plans do

----the possibilty of the impact happening is minimal, and should be divided by the number of plans that construct threats

----even if thats only two, we outweigh

 

(thank you brett)

 

there are various other threads about this, do a search

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Stewie's face? Meet my palm.

 

also, you arent doing impact analaysis when running a k becuase its evaluated on a different level

 

Then why read an impact in the first place? I mean, you aren't going to argue that the K outweighs. You should be arguing that the impacts of the K should be evaluated first because of whatever framework you operate under (discourse/ontology/epistemology, etc.

 

(ergo, k's dont turn case).
If you aren't arguing that your K turns case you deserve to lose on it. Let's take over-consumption for instance.

 

Link- Plan doesn't change consumption habits.

Impact- Replicates case harms

Alt- Change personal consumption habits

(shitty but whatever, not the point)

 

Obviously, the K turns the case. But that isn't telling you to evaluate the impacts of the K before discourse/ontology/whatever, it is simply saying that the K impacts should go before case impacts.

 

 

when you start comparing post-fiat plan to alt, you are essentially conceding that discourse/ontology/epistomolgy/etc should not be evaluted first, thus weighing your non-unique impact against the affirmative plan.
Uh, you compare post-fiat plan to the alt when you argue that the alt. solves the plan or that the alt. should come first. So how does that concede that the K framework should not come first?

 

Good luck winning that an alt of "rejecting aff thought" or "do nothing" etc will outweigh the aff plan.
If the alt. is "do nothing" then you shouldn't be arguing that the K outweighs anyway. You should be arguing that doing nothing is the only way to prevent....threat construction, or that it traverses that fantasy, or whatever else.

 

Have you ever beaten a threat con K?

 

2ac:

--they are conceding that ontology isnt the only that matters and you should vote on impacts via there kritik turns case card, and ergo operating on our framework (insert analysis)

Again, how? Just because we argue that the K impacts should be evaluated over case impacts doesn't mean we concede that ontology should not come first. We just say that ontological impacts (enter Zimmerman) should come before nuclear war (enter Khalilzad). And if those ontological impacts happen to replicate/make the case harms worse, then guess what, we turn the case too.

 

--this kritik is really just a non-unique disad

----sure, we construct threats

----alot of plans do

And if you read that against any competent team, they will rape you in the ass with your own flows. If you say "shittons of plans construct threats" or "yeah sure, we construct threats that probably don't exist" then they will have fun shoving impacts up your ass for 8 minutes in the 2NC.

 

----the possibilty of the impact happening is minimal, and should be divided by the number of plans that construct threats
That's the link- there really isn't a chance of case harms happening, but the fact that you construct them as a threat makes them happen. And what the fuck do you mean "should be divided by the number of plans that construct threats"?

 

----even if thats only two, we outweigh
No, you don't outweigh, because post-plan, you don't solve, because your impacts are going to happen due to your construction of threats.

 

there are various other threads about this, do a search
The one thing (s)he got right.

 

Check this one out. Its more helpful than this thread is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it really depends on the K. Like some Ks really are non unique linear disads. Even more so I think it depends on the impacts. Like epistemology is one of those things that deals with the aff's assumptions and stuff. But if you're going to run some nuclear war or extinction impact, I think the K functions a lot like a disad. Furthermore, I think the alt functions like a counterplan a lot of the times. It solves the K and should probably solve case as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatives provide uniqueness for the link/impact level of critiques. That is why when you just read links and impacts it is called a "linear disad" or when you kick the alternative the rest of the K functions as a case turn/no solvency/etc. type argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--they are conceding that ontology isnt the only that matters and you should vote on impacts via there kritik turns case card, and ergo operating on our framework (insert analysis)

 

damning arg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you aren't evaluating discourse/ontology/epistomolgy/etc first, then you are essentially operating on the policy affimatives framework, thus rendering the k a non-unique disad.

 

also, you arent doing impact analaysis when running a k becuase its evaluated on a different level (ergo, k's dont turn case). when you start comparing post-fiat plan to alt, you are essentially conceding that discourse/ontology/epistomolgy/etc should not be evaluted first, thus weighing your non-unique impact against the affirmative plan. Good luck winning that an alt of "rejecting aff thought" or "do nothing" etc will outweigh the aff plan.

 

for example, take threat con.

 

1ac. something that fixes rels with russia, preventing nuke war

1nc. threat con

--link: the aff's plan constructs threats that may or may not exist

--impact: war

--alt: reject aff thought

--kritik turns the case

2ac:

--framework

---we get to weigh our impacts against those of the k

--they are conceding that ontology isnt the only that matters and you should vote on impacts via there kritik turns case card, and ergo operating on our framework (insert analysis)

--this kritik is really just a non-unique disad

----sure, we construct threats

----alot of plans do

----the possibilty of the impact happening is minimal, and should be divided by the number of plans that construct threats

----even if thats only two, we outweigh

 

(thank you brett)

 

there are various other threads about this, do a search

I completely agree with that assessment. Kritiks end up being thought of as generic DAs, because a lot of debaters run them like that, especially at the level of impact analysis. Kritiks and DAs address fundamentally different questions about their advocacy and operate on different levels of abstraction. Kritiks are philosophical and/or metaphysical arguments. DAs are arguments about cause and effect and hypothetical real world events.

 

This is what the typical debate would look like if it were a battlefield:

The aff plan is like a tank and DAs are like land mines and other ground forces. The kritik is like a jet fighter, and operating at 10,000+ ft, is beyond the reach of mines, grenades, and tank shells. The neg, seeing that their target is on the ground, lands their fighter squadron onto the ground to engage the enemy tank platoon, hoping to get a better shot that way. As the neg drives their warplanes down the road to impact analysis, they say to themselves, "Our planes outnumber their tanks, and besides, jet fighters are way more faster and agile than tanks. We clearly outweigh them. We'll get 'em good with our 30mm cannons. It doesn't matter that tanks have 120mm cannons, since jet fighters aren't tanks and aren't vulnerable to land mines, rocket propelled grenades, and other tanks like they are."

 

A more appropriate alternative would be like using laser guided weapons, but it takes special training to learn how to operate the equipment to acquire and designate targets before you can even fire. It is comparatively more straightforward to use a point-and-shoot weapon like a 30mm gun, so debaters naturally default to an alternative that is conceptually easier to grasp. The problem is that those are only easier to use on the ground, on the level of the tank, DAs, and hypothetical outcomes of policy actions, not on the level of the kritik, 10,000+ ft at mach 2 where guided missiles work best. To say that a kritik does not have to be unique is like saying that a jet fighter is invulnerable to land mines and grenades. It depends on where it is deployed.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why read an impact in the first place? I mean, you aren't going to argue that the K outweighs. You should be arguing that the impacts of the K should be evaluated first because of whatever framework you operate under (discourse/ontology/epistemology, etc.

 

If you aren't arguing that your K turns case you deserve to lose on it. Let's take over-consumption for instance.

 

Link- Plan doesn't change consumption habits.

Impact- Replicates case harms

Alt- Change personal consumption habits

(shitty but whatever, not the point)

 

Obviously, the K turns the case. But that isn't telling you to evaluate the impacts of the K before discourse/ontology/whatever, it is simply saying that the K impacts should go before case impacts.

 

No, that is a case turn with a cp disguised as an alt. Its questioning things on cause/effect basis, not a philisophical one. For something to be considered a kritik, it must question the asumptions that the plan uses, and not operate on a policy framework.

 

Uh, you compare post-fiat plan to the alt when you argue that the alt. solves the plan or that the alt. should come first. So how does that concede that the K framework should not come first?

 

No, you definetly shouldnt. Most kritiks argue that fiat is illusionary, ergo the only thing that matters is discourse in-round. By fiating the alt, your conceding that you should look to impacts instead of the discourse/ontology/epistimology, and thus turning the k into a non-unique disad.

 

 

Have you ever beaten a threat con K?

As a matter of fact, i have.

 

Again, how? Just because we argue that the K impacts should be evaluated over case impacts doesn't mean we concede that ontology should not come first. We just say that ontological impacts (enter Zimmerman) should come before nuclear war (enter Khalilzad). And if those ontological impacts happen to replicate/make the case harms worse, then guess what, we turn the case too.

 

You misunderstand me, is i was talking about evaluating the impacts on the same level as the aff. However, when you turn case, you need to evalute the impacts to the k on the same level as the policy aff. Doesnt seem a little contradictory to then claim that the aff cant evaluate their plan on the same level as the k?

 

And if you read that against any competent team, they will rape you in the ass with your own flows. If you say "shittons of plans construct threats" or "yeah sure, we construct threats that probably don't exist" then they will have fun shoving impacts up your ass for 8 minutes in the 2NC.

 

NO, becuase they conceded framework, and hence the k essentially became a non-unique disad, which is the purpose of me saying "a lot of polices use threatcon"--to show its non-unique.

 

That's the link- there really isn't a chance of case harms happening, but the fact that you construct them as a threat makes them happen. And what the fuck do you mean "should be divided by the number of plans that construct threats"?

 

Were saying that there is no chance of the impact to the K happening, its essentially non-unique.

 

Um, i mean exactly what i say there...... in the sense that "costruct threats" = policies that use assumptions based off of how other nation-states will react. The risk of impact to the k happening is so little in the first place, and that becuase other polcies also utilise this methodolgy, divide that risk by the number of policies that "construct" threats.

 

No, you don't outweigh, because post-plan, you don't solve, because your impacts are going to happen due to your construction of threats.

 

Risk of the adv. of the aff happening are far greater than the risk of the impact of the k happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff plan is like a tank and DAs are like land mines and other ground forces. The kritik is like a jet fighter, and operating at 10,000+ ft, is beyond the reach of mines, grenades, and tank shells. The neg, seeing that their target is on the ground, lands their fighter squadron onto the ground to engage the enemy tank platoon, hoping to get a better shot that way. As the neg drives their warplanes down the road to impact analysis, they say to themselves, "Our planes outnumber their tanks, and besides, jet fighters are way more faster and agile than tanks. We clearly outweigh them. We'll get 'em good with our 30mm cannons. It doesn't matter that tanks have 120mm cannons, since jet fighters aren't tanks and aren't vulnerable to land mines, rocket propelled grenades, and other tanks like they are."

 

A more appropriate alternative would be like using laser guided weapons, but it takes special training to learn how to operate the equipment to acquire and designate targets before you can even fire. It is comparatively more straightforward to use a point-and-shoot weapon like a 30mm gun, so debaters naturally default to an alternative that is conceptually easier to grasp. The problem is that those are only easier to use on the ground, on the level of the tank, DAs, and hypothetical outcomes of policy actions, not on the level of the kritik, 10,000+ ft at mach 2 where guided missiles work best. To say that a kritik does not have to be unique is like saying that a jet fighter is invulnerable to land mines and grenades. It depends on where it is deployed.

 

thx for the clarification, i was so confused. what i really needed was for someone to contextualize it in terms of various military vehicles and battlefield strategy.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I apologize for my asshole-ness in my previous post...I had just woken up and I'm not pleasant when I just wake up especially after having some...adult bevereges the night before.

 

No, that is a case turn with a cp disguised as an alt. Its questioning things on cause/effect basis, not a philisophical one. For something to be considered a kritik, it must question the asumptions that the plan uses, and not operate on a policy framework.

 

It does attack an assumption of the plan; the plan assumes that consumption habits are ok now. The K doesn't operate on a policy framework, we don't "fiat" anything. We don't use the USfg to do anything. Fiat is illusory, nothing acutally happens post plan, but the alt can function without fiat.

 

 

No, you definetly shouldnt. Most kritiks argue that fiat is illusionary, ergo the only thing that matters is discourse in-round. By fiating the alt, your conceding that you should look to impacts instead of the discourse/ontology/epistimology, and thus turning the k into a non-unique disad.
You are right- fiat is illusory. But I never said the alt gets fiated- it doesn't.

 

 

 

You misunderstand me, is i was talking about evaluating the impacts on the same level as the aff. However, when you turn case, you need to evalute the impacts to the k on the same level as the policy aff. Doesnt seem a little contradictory to then claim that the aff cant evaluate their plan on the same level as the k?
Saying the K turns case doesn't automatically concede to a policy making framework. It gives the judge a reason to evaluate discourse/ontology/epistemology first much like the impact does, and therefore prefer the alt over the case.

 

 

 

NO, becuase they conceded framework, and hence the k essentially became a non-unique disad, which is the purpose of me saying "a lot of polices use threatcon"--to show its non-unique.
See above. "K turns case" doesn't concede to policy making. Let's say the case (doesn't matter what it is) has the advantage of oil dependency -> loss of heg. The aformentioned over-consumption K would have the impacts of replicating the aff harms- unless we individually challenge consumption habits, we will still need to look to outside sources for help, which still leads to case harms. This isn't any different then saying the impacts are eco-destruction- neither of them tell you to evaluate the impacts first, they are simply a reason the aff's assumption (that our current consumption is ok) is bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Were saying that there is no chance of the impact to the K happening, its essentially non-unique.
Fiat is illusory, so the case doesn't happen, and the case impacts don't get solved for by the aff. But (according to the K we are using as an example) the root cause of those problems are our consumption habits. So, the alt solves the case by effect, and prevents the impact of the replication of the impacts.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People only call it a non-unique disad because a K isn't usually unique, which means if it was a disadvantage, it would be a non-unique disad, or a linear disad. Calling a K a NU-DA is only an attempt to simplify a K down to something really simple that a novice debater can understand, but in reality, a disad and a K often operate in different ways, as explained by other posters.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>The negative most times will argue the kritik turns the case i.e capitalism causes war, those are terminally non unique because capitalism has existed for 100's of years and it hasn't caused extinction

 

This is a misconception of sorts. This person is making an empirically denied argument--not a nonuniqueness argument. You can combine the two--no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether Ks "turn" case depends on what exactly you consider a turn. Because Kritiks are non-unique, any impact in the world of fiat is diffuse - the plan didn't create it. So, while a particular advantage may be turned, the action is more of a solvency mitigator than an actual turn. Consider:

Aff rund Windians with a cultural identity advantage.

Neg runs "tribes" kritik, demonstrating that as long as we view first nations peoples within western terminology, the cultural identity will never be distinct from the history of colonial oppression.

It's not the fact that aff called first nations "tribes" or even that the plan text specifies the questionable language that leads to the impact. It is the conception we hold of the aboriginal peoples that creates the impact. So aff didn't actually create the impact that keeps them from succeeding in the advantage, but the kritik shows how the problem will never be solved without first addressing the basic assumptions about first nations' people. In point of fact, whether the plan passes or not, neg is claiming the impact will continue. The solution is the shift away from the perceptions of "tribes" or "native americans" towards "first nation" or "aboriginal."

 

A true turn is when the aff takes an action which prohibits solvency. In this case, and in the case of most kritikal case turns, what the aff does is fail to address an underlying assumption which needs to be solved before the advantage can be fully realized. This analysis is most persuasive when applied to the framework flow, as it gives a specifically warranted reason to prefer the discursive framework over the policy approach. If the policy approach can never succeed in its most humanistic advantages, solving the problems that create the solvency deficit gains primacy in adjudication.

Edited by brorlob
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. It depends on the Kritik. Some, if you get rid of the alternative can become non-unique disads. Biopower is a pretty good example of this. I once saw a team drop a perm, the aff went only for the perm in the 1AR, so the neg dropped the alternative in the 2NR to take away all of the offense and just advocate it as a linear disad. Others however are not.

 

D/A assumes a fiated world, and tells the judge that is bad, and the status quo needs to be preferred.

 

K criticizes pre-fiat plan, that the actions it takes, assumptions it makes, or way it is worded/read is bad.

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...