Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ace

Schmitt K

Recommended Posts

This K is something i'm probably gonna be going against but i don't know how to answer it properly i was thinking that the argument of making a fine line between friends and enemies alienates other which is dehumanizing but i feel that is no where near sufficient to answer this K. Also while i'm asking for help would anyone mind explaining the lie perm to me i understand it like we perm the cp to a condition but i would like an example like toward NATO CP or anything really so i can get how it works and is used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When answering the Schmitt K, there are a few things you need to make sure you do, assuming the team you're debating knows their stuff. You will probably need to win that violence is not inevitable, and that the alternative (usually something like acknowledging the existence of political enemies) doesn't prevent the wars of the 1ac. If you can do that, then you should be able to win by weighing case and winning on time frame. It would help if I knew what aff you run because this is assuming they're critiquing regular war impacts which isn't a very strong link to schmitt. The K is best run against universalist affs but some people try to get links off of the 1ac solving war.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be really helpful if you'd say what the thesis of your aff is, seeing as it's hard to give you more nuanced arguments than the "violence not inevitable/distinction bad" debate without knowing what you do.

 

Also while i'm asking for help would anyone mind explaining the lie perm to me i understand it like we perm the cp to a condition but i would like an example like toward NATO CP or anything really so i can get how it works and is used.

 

The lie perm basically says that we submit the plan for consultation to NATO, but we lie about letting them have the ability to reject it/modify it. That way, since the neg has to argue that NATO says yes and that consultation is binding, the perm solves the entirety of the counterplan. The added (however small) risk that NATO says no is where the perm becomes net-beneficial, because in the world of the counterplan the plan obviously would not happen if NATO disapproves, but since the perm lies about NATO's ability to reject it, the plan still occurs if they say no. At this point, you should be able to weigh case pretty easily against the "NATO relations disad" that remains.

Edited by broken
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When answering the Schmitt K, there are a few things you need to make sure you do, assuming the team you're debating knows their stuff. You will probably need to win that violence is not inevitable, and that the alternative (usually something like acknowledging the existence of political enemies) doesn't prevent the wars of the 1ac. If you can do that, then you should be able to win by weighing case and winning on time frame. It would help if I knew what aff you run because this is assuming they're critiquing regular war impacts which isn't a very strong link to schmitt. The K is best run against universalist affs but some people try to get links off of the 1ac solving war.

Smart answer, listen to this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When answering the Schmitt K, there are a few things you need to make sure you do, assuming the team you're debating knows their stuff. You will probably need to win that violence is not inevitable, and that the alternative (usually something like acknowledging the existence of political enemies) doesn't prevent the wars of the 1ac. If you can do that, then you should be able to win by weighing case and winning on time frame. It would help if I knew what aff you run because this is assuming they're critiquing regular war impacts which isn't a very strong link to schmitt. The K is best run against universalist affs but some people try to get links off of the 1ac solving war.

 

well personally i run either the Phase Out Aff or the Bagram Aff (Afghanistan)

other Aff i use are Japan (remove from Okinawa and move to Guam) and The COIN aff (switching from COIN to COT) i see what your saying and so if i can prove that acknowledging political enemies as equal don't cause war then i can just outweigh them with extinction or human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their K is "we should draw the line between friends and enemies"

 

Ask them to draw that line in c-x

 

Yeah no schmitt debater will see that one coming

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well personally i run either the Phase Out Aff or the Bagram Aff (Afghanistan)

other Aff i use are Japan (remove from Okinawa and move to Guam) and The COIN aff (switching from COIN to COT) i see what your saying and so if i can prove that acknowledging political enemies as equal don't cause war then i can just outweigh them with extinction or human rights.

 

Bagram (Assuming you're running an I-law advantage, i'm not super familiar with this case so i could be totally wrong) - You will need to be able to win that it is possible for I-Law to work. This means that you need to win that we can all be subsumed under an international code of ethics without demonizing those who disagree with it. Obviously this links really hard, but you could spin it like, "I-Law respects the ideals and culture of the other, it just creates guidelines for how we conduct IR." Its kind of weak so a strong defense of liberalism wouldn't hurt.

 

Coin - If you're running a heg advantage, they're going to say that heg is used as a global police force who's mission is to exterminate those who don't comply with liberalism. What you need to say is that hegemony is actually used to defend ourselves against the enemy and in-so-doing acknowledging and respecting his otherness. Remember, Schmitt has absolutely no problem with self defense you just need to win that heg doesn't cause a wreck of imperialism. Another kind of sketch thing you could do here is say that some sort of imperialism is inevitable, although if they're smart at all they should be able to solve that with the alternative.

 

The most important thing is that you win the case. Sure you should make arguments about how your aff doesn't necessarily ignore of refuse otherness, but as long as you can prove that the alt doesn't solve case you should win. Their extinction impacts will be very vague.

 

Also, just to clarify, THEY're the ones that are going to say that recognizing political enemies prevents war. Their argument will be something along the lines of "refusing otherness creates a form of universalism under which those who don't comply are deemed sub human and exterminated"

Edited by Inherencyftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will probably need to win that violence is not inevitable

 

Alright.

 

...and that the alternative (usually something like acknowledging the existence of political enemies) doesn't prevent the wars of the 1ac.

 

I thought Schmitt says that wars are inevitable, so why would the alt be claiming to solve for war? Are you just bringing it up as an impact calc? As in " They still don't solve the impacts of the 1AC so they should still lose" ? I'm pretty unfamiliar with Schmitt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Schmitt says that wars are inevitable, so why would the alt be claiming to solve for war? Are you just bringing it up as an impact calc? As in " They still don't solve the impacts of the 1AC so they should still lose" ? I'm pretty unfamiliar with Schmitt.

 

Hillman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Hillman was the "war is inevitable" guy.

 

I'm not sure. I just know that in most Schmitt Ks I hit I hear that "war is always on the horizon of foreign policy" or some such. I was just grouping the claims made by many Schmitt Ks under the name Schmitt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that was a blunder on my part. The Schmitt K would say that the wars of the 1ac are inevitable in some form or another, but the alternative would claim to limit those wars, namely by making sure they aren't morally justified. Schmitt says wars waged on moral high grounds become wars fought to exterminate the enemy as opposed to achieving a political objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Hillman was the "war is inevitable" guy.

 

Both Hillman and Schmitt claim that war/violence is gonna happen.

 

What Schmitt says is that wars nowadays are waged in the name of peace - the US is the leader of the free world, leading humanity towards peace and stability. Any nation that creates trouble, therefore, is seen as outside of the order of humanity and its goals - they are dehumanized, and wars against them are crusades of the good against the evil. Complete annihilation is justified.

 

The alternative is a return to the friend/enemy dichotomy, back when wars waged between nations were destructive, yes, but limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Hillman and Schmitt claim that war/violence is gonna happen.

 

What Schmitt says is that wars nowadays are waged in the name of peace - the US is the leader of the free world, leading humanity towards peace and stability. Any nation that creates trouble, therefore, is seen as outside of the order of humanity and its goals - they are dehumanized, and wars against them are crusades of the good against the evil. Complete annihilation is justified.

 

The alternative is a return to the friend/enemy dichotomy, back when wars waged between nations were destructive, yes, but limited.

 

So basically, "stop fighting because they don't believe the same thing as you. Instead, fight for a certain tangible gain."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically, "stop fighting because they don't believe the same thing as you. Instead, fight for a certain tangible gain."?

 

As a basic summary, yes. The way the kritik is structured most of the time is that the aff is trying to create peace, which gives them the moral authority to wage total wars to create that peace. However, if we fight for tangible gains only, we aren't going to feel motivated to carpetbomb hospitals and destroy evil nations, only defeat them in battle, so we can get that gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have schmitt answers... and the kritik. so if u need in personally message me and i could trade for u... and i have a 424 kritik toolbox that answers just about every kritik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a basic summary, yes. The way the kritik is structured most of the time is that the aff is trying to create peace, which gives them the moral authority to wage total wars to create that peace. However, if we fight for tangible gains only, we aren't going to feel motivated to carpetbomb hospitals and destroy evil nations, only defeat them in battle, so we can get that gain.

 

I always dismissed this K as simple and boring...actually...it sounds freakin awesome...Mr. Tink, you should PM me and work out a trade for your educational assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Threads like this wouldn't be necessary if everybody would just read every book written by every critical author.

 

Then we'd never have time to...breath...that's a lot of reading...

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...