Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tropicality93

K of DA?

Recommended Posts

I.E. you run a kritical case or one that claims small - systemic type impacts.

2AC reads security against the DA.

 

Or 2AC reads terror talk against the DA when you don't say it in the 1AC

Ect.

 

Its good if your a kritical debator or you don't have a block to it because you'll have the debate alot and be ready no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How exactly does Kritik-ing a DA work?
Exactly the same way kritiking the 1ac works when you're neg. You expose the flaws in the thinking or discourse of your opponent. You do this by using the reasoning of their DA as the link to the kritik.
Is this viable as a strategic option?
In limited instances, yes.
When should the 2AC use it?
It should be done when the kritik in question advances the overall cause of the affirmative advocacy. If your 1ac has kritik implication cards within an advantage, you can get a massive time advantage with an argument that is pure offense for aff.

 

More importantly, it should only be done when the link story is essentially undeniable. If you answer a DA with a kritik then attempt to answer it straight up, you're going to give a big time trade off to neg (unless you are twice as fast). And never ever try to turn any part of the DA that you're using as your kritik's link story. Do so, and the affirmative position will be unrecoverable by 1ar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how would use kato

expessially when running a natives aff?

 

I personally love Kato, but many judges hate it. You would use Kato when your aff has no nuclear war impact, and the other team reads a DA with an impact of nuke war. You criticize their notion of being able to solve for the impact by explaining that natives are already victims of nuke war through the term "nuclear testing". Through their discourse, they ignore the effects of testing on natives, which is bad. The impact is the extinction of the natives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how would use kato

expessially when running a natives aff?

Sort of relies on a link of omission - them privledging nuclear war representations is rhetorically powerful and delegitimizes the plight of the indigenous people who continually suffer through nuclear testing/radiation. They have to win that this rhetoric is bad, and discourse comes first, to win the round on that argument though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally love Kato, but many judges hate it. You would use Kato when your aff has no nuclear war impact, and the other team reads a DA with an impact of nuke war. You criticize their notion of being able to solve for the impact by explaining that natives are already victims of nuke war through the term "nuclear testing". Through their discourse, they ignore the effects of testing on natives, which is bad. The impact is the extinction of the natives.

 

 

yea, but this only occurs with critical affs right- all other affs access extinction probably through nuclear war, unless its like warming and biodiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea, but this only occurs with critical affs right- all other affs access extinction probably through nuclear war, unless its like warming and biodiv

 

There are a few straight up affs that don't include nuke war impacts, but yes, it's mostly used with k affs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what "straight up" affs

 

It all depends on the advantages, like you said, warming and biodiversity advantages work just fine. Any impact that the aff can solve for that results in extinction without nuclear war will work. There's no specific straight up aff, it all depends on how you make the advtanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sort of relies on a link of omission - them privledging nuclear war representations is rhetorically powerful and delegitimizes the plight of the indigenous people who continually suffer through nuclear testing/radiation. They have to win that this rhetoric is bad' date=' and discourse comes first, to win the round on that argument though.[/quote']

 

You've seen this argument enough times to know it's not a link of omission and any debater that paints it as one is doing a horrible injustice to the argument Masahide (pardon me if I butchered that) Kato is making.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got neg repped asking how it's not a link of Omission, so I will answer.

 

To say that Nuclear War is extinction is to deny what has happened to the Native Americans as a type of "nuclear war." This is not to say that you are omitting what has happened to them, but that what happened to them does not count as a war because it "didn't cause extinction" because "nuclear war always causes extinction". So rather than saying that you don't mention them the link is by saying it causes extinction it shifts the definition of what happened to them as not a nuclear which you then omit what was done to them. The impact is omission, not the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got neg repped asking how it's not a link of Omission, so I will answer.

 

To say that Nuclear War is extinction is to deny what has happened to the Native Americans as a type of "nuclear war." This is not to say that you are omitting what has happened to them, but that what happened to them does not count as a war because it "didn't cause extinction" because "nuclear war always causes extinction". So rather than saying that you don't mention them the link is by saying it causes extinction it shifts the definition of what happened to them as not a nuclear which you then omit what was done to them. The impact is omission, not the link.

 

When you say that you "deny what has happened to the Native Americans as a type of 'nuclear war'" - how is that not a link of omission. From what I undestand you are saying that this nuclear testing against fourth world is a type of nuclear war - when we engage in talks over nuclear war, we ignore these nuclear testings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that we ignore, but that it says they aren't nuclear war.

 

A link of omission is "you didn't discuss X___"

 

Kato says "Your discussion of nuclear war always causing extinction says what happened to the Native Americans and 4th world nations wasn't a war."

 

Again, the impact, is that you omit them as nuclear wars and erase them from your memory. The link is the way you discursively talk about nuclear war. It's not "You didn't talk about Native Americans and 4th world nations in the context of nuclear war" but that your definition of nuclear war says what happened to Native Americans and 4th world nations does not "count" as a war.

Edited by Hunk BaconStrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not "You didn't talk about Native Americans and 4th world nations in the context of nuclear war" but that your definition of nuclear war says what happened to Native Americans and 4th world nations does not "count" as a war.

 

Exactly. Our defintion of nuclear war omits what happened to Native Americans and the 4th world. The impact to Kato K is predicated on this "nuclear war" against the 4th world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In debate terminology this NOT a link of omission. As debaters frame it a link of omission is "You didn't talk about X____" not "your interpretation of this omits X_____" Kato is the latter.

 

Your interpretation of nuclear war (that it causes extinction) says that what has taken place can't be a nuclear war.

 

And Casso, you're wrong. Kato specifically indicts Schell in his article. Your framing of "nuclear war" as the one final event of human extinction is the link itself. And yes, up until "that's a link itself" that was a direct quote from the article.

 

Let me put it this way, when you say that "Nuclear war leads to extinction" you are indicating that what happened to Native Americans (NOT "natives") could not have been a "nuclear war" because we aren't extinct yet.

Edited by Hunk BaconStrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In debate terminology this NOT a link of omission. As debaters frame it a link of omission is "You didn't talk about X____" not "your interpretation of this omits X_____" Kato is the latter.

 

Your interpretation of nuclear war (that it causes extinction) says that what has taken place can't be a nuclear war.

 

And Casso, you're wrong. Kato specifically indicts Schell in his article. Your framing of "nuclear war" as the one final event of human extinction is the link itself. And yes, up until "that's a link itself" that was a direct quote from the article.

 

Let me put it this way, when you say that "Nuclear war leads to extinction" you are indicating that what happened to Native Americans (NOT "natives") could not have been a "nuclear war" because we aren't extinct yet.

 

Not quite. Kato discusses that the thought of nuclear war excludes the ongoing nuclear testing that is comparable to the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. When we use cards like Khalilzad to portray nuclear war impacts, we are ignoring the ongoing nuclear genocide against natives in the name of nuclear testing. Pretty much, kato says that by you perceiving nuclear war as a future threat, you ignore natives. By ignoring them, it causes their genocide. Instead of focusing on solving these future nuke war impacts, we should focus on the ongoing nuclear genocide against the natives. In this way, it is a link of omission, it doesn't deal with the notion of nuke war leading to extinction through future impacts, but rather through systematic impacts in the squo happening to the natives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

READ THE KATO ARTICLE rather than drawing assumptions from the way it's debated. I am 100% sure that everything I've said about Kato is the correct characterization of what Masahide is saying. Treating nuclear war as a "thus far non-event" that "looks upon the one final event of human extinction" treats what happened to Native Americans (NOT NATIVES) as "not" a "real" (as designated by Schell and nuclear critics) nuclear war, thus legitmizing their genocide.

 

Again the link is NOT "You didn't talk about Native Americans when you said 'nuclear war' " it's the way you discursively employ "nuclear war"

 

I'm not joking he specifically indicts Schell (the parenthesis above, about Schell are a direct quote from the article) and the thought of Nuclear War as a non-event. NOT saying that future nuclear war is bad, but that saying that nuclear war has/will only happen in the future is bad.

Edited by Hunk BaconStrong

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...