Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Octagon

Multiple K's

Recommended Posts

I know this isnt stratigically good but can you run multiple k's as long as the alt's dont conflict with each other?

 

Even if the alternatives are the same, make sure that the Kritiks you run all fit within the same framework. If they don't, a decent team will catch you on it. Be prepared to argue condo good as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this isnt stratigically good but can you run multiple k's as long as the alt's dont conflict with each other?

Nothing bad about it except being unstrategic. Its no different then running 3 counterplans, but usually their answers on one K overlap with another K so it becomes a time tradeoff for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarianism K and Foucault **might** not mix.

 

I wouldn't worry about it--because the alt on the K (presumably the foucault K) would solve back the contradiction.

 

(even though I would argue perf con = no alt solvency)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My notion is run it and debate it out. (but don't be shady about it)

 

Most authors don't agree 100%--so contradiction on that level is 100% inevitable--that goes for case arguments + disads + Ks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously if the framework of the Ks are different, you're a moron.

But do the alt's/mpx have to be the same?

 

I'm in a Christian mostly-conservative high school league; our Ks are different; here are two I like:

 

Interventionist K

  • Framework: presuppositions first
  • Links: a) No previous government incentives for ______ reduction exist (case specific), & B) AFF claims solvency through regulation (non-case specific)
  • Mpx: Attempting to solve a problem with regulation FIRST leads to an anti-capitalist utopian mindset that leads to congruent oppressive policies; we can see this as strikingly evident in the world of domestic policy today.
  • Alt: Incentivize first; regulation later

Critical Impacts K (background for this K: this is somewhat case-specific; the case is to use regulation to reduce exportation of toxic electronic waste. the neg contention is that people overseas actually WANT to recycle this toxic stuff because they will die of starvation otherwise; they're impoverished)

  • Framework: presups first (same as above)
  • Links: a) AFF's harms are that people will die, & B) AFF assumes these people want to be "saved"
  • Mpx: a) Intrinsic denial – By using loss of life as a harm, AFF devalues any human life advantage by claiming the people recycling e-waste don’t want to be doing what they’re doing. & B) HRs lost – By attempting to stop people from recycling e-waste, AFF claims that human life should be valued above human rights. This mindset leads to one of a protectionist autocracy, claiming to know what’s best for the individual.
  • Alt: Attempt to mitigate harmful effects of the toxins on the recyclers, but don't attempt to stop them from doing what they want to be doing (it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others)

 

Everything's different but the framework. Is that legit?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first "K" doesn't need to be a K... It looks args ive used as case defense...

It doesn't have to be, but it works better than solvency, DA, etc.

And...I don't get what that second part means.

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...