Jump to content
Red Spy

Official Thread: Conditionality

Recommended Posts

I understand the dispo part, but if i ran both unconditionally I would have to advocate 2 alternatives in the 2NR, which is problematic.

 

On abuse though, 2 condo Ks that function together (not major perf con) is not abusive? Or?

 

Ive read alot of judge paradigms and most of them say 1 cp/1k is legit, but dont really address anything more.

Just run 'em condo.  Don't be afraid of condo... everyone does it.  Its's okay

 

2 condo k's are no different than 2 condo cp's.  If they function fine together, then they aren't abusive.  But say you ran a cap good k and cap bad k, that would be blatantly abusive and subject to perf-con on a much higher level.

 

1cp/1k interp works if thats what you are running, otherwise "interp: we get 2 condo's" works fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, try to avoid reading contradicting critiques. I've won too many rounds on ethical condo against such teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, try to avoid reading contradicting critiques. I've won too many rounds on ethical condo against such teams.

When you say ethical condo, do you mean the wilderson argument that says perfcon=white supremecy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say ethical condo, do you mean the wilderson argument that says perfcon=white supremecy?

there are a lot of flavors of that argument (gender and cap also have a version of the kritik of condo) but that's certainly one of them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really isn't much in terms of evidence or analytics, but the basic idea of that argument is that conditionality is bad because the negative's use of multiple advocacies undermines their credibility or the education gained from the position that they talk about at the end of the debate. Most of the time though the specific warrants for how it hurts education is specific to the aff. As for cards, there aren't many out there but you might have better luck on the past caselists for college debate.

 

On a similar note, at least for when I judge I don't think it's particularly true, but do you believe topicality/framework would or should be considered as an advocacy when conditionality becomes an issue in a critical debate? (so like if a team reads Framework + a K or Counteradvocacy)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really isn't much in terms of evidence or analytics, but the basic idea of that argument is that conditionality is bad because the negative's use of multiple advocacies undermines their credibility or the education gained from the position that they talk about at the end of the debate. Most of the time though the specific warrants for how it hurts education is specific to the aff. As for cards, there aren't many out there but you might have better luck on the past caselists for college debate.

 

On a similar note, at least for when I judge I don't think it's particularly true, but do you believe topicality/framework would or should be considered as an advocacy when conditionality becomes an issue in a critical debate? (so like if a team reads Framework + a K or Counteradvocacy)

1.  The versions I've seen seem to be more about ethics than education.  Conditionality is a form of fluid politics/ideology, which is a manifestation of whiteness, or conditionality incentivizes us to throw metaphorical shit at the wall and hope something sticks, which destroys our ability to form coherent ideologies because we're taught to use beliefs as weapons, while making us really good at justifying rejecting arguments that would be problematic for us.

 

2. In most condo debates with a K aff, I think it tends to be framed more as a perfcon debate than a condo debate, so the number of advocacies technically present is less important than how they interact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2. In most condo debates with a K aff, I think it tends to be framed more as a perfcon debate than a condo debate, so the number of advocacies technically present is less important than how they interact.

Sure, I guess my question then is- what is the distinction- obviosuly if you read a framework countermethod that says the law/state is good, and then a K that does agree with the aff that the state is bad, that's a perf-con issue. What then is the link to perf-con or conditionality when topicality or framework is read as a topicality argument (ground, fairness, education impacts) along with a counteradvocacy or critique.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I guess my question then is- what is the distinction- obviosuly if you read a framework countermethod that says the law/state is good, and then a K that does agree with the aff that the state is bad, that's a perf-con issue. What then is the link to perf-con or conditionality when topicality or framework is read as a topicality argument (ground, fairness, education impacts) along with a counteradvocacy or critique.

because both the aff and other K say discourse/ontology/epistemology comes first, you can probably garner a per-con link off of "re-examining X comes first" with a "lets exclude re-examination of X w/ Framework"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the consensus is 2 condo is better than 1 condo 1 dispo

 

 

I haven't fully thought this through.  But....its probably easier just to defend condo....but specify that you are going for 1.  (you are condo with exceptions)

 

If they say they have two condo...you have an opt out.

 

If you are going for one of the positions inevitably....I don't think the words condo or dispo fully integrate that stance per se.  Given that I think my opening sentance might capture what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that people should stick to what they advocate-perms are tests and should be phrased as "the two advocacies can be done at the same time."

 

I read CPs and Ks as dispo because if aff answers with a lot of defense and offense, then I can drop it from the debate. If they only do offense, then I would stick with it, which I have no qualms against doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the negative just say, "OK, we concede conditionality bad so we're making all our Counterplans unconditional/dispositional" in 2NC? What can the 1AR say against this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuvalu said:

Can the negative just say, "OK, we concede conditionality bad so we're making all our Counterplans unconditional/dispositional" in 2NC? What can the 1AR say against this? 

They HAVE to specify that in cx. If they change the status of the cp after specifying something different in cx, it warrants abuse theory in the 1AR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×