Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ace

Possibly the Worst or Best K ever Written

Recommended Posts

So my friends are thinking of making a K where they themselves are the author and they are criticizing the opponent putting their author voices above their own in other words they say that by talking through the author and not through our own voice's we disenfranchise our voices and make them useless and that in turn is dehumanizing and their alternative is to reject Aff. Seriously they said this is a try or die argument cause it must be run by itself and i really think it bad honestly in 30 seconds i thought that as debater we know automatically no one debate the same from another and so the way we articulate our arguments and form the images of scenario in our judges head on consequences that will occur when the plan is rejected, this is our voice we have not disenfranchise it and in fact the Neg has disenfranchise us by taking that away from us the voices we once held to shape debates through our own words and understanding of the arguments. Pleases reply telling me if it bad, is it good, can it be improved upon, or is it a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2AC can just get up and say "perm do the plan replace all of our card from now on authors to (last name of one of the debaters)".

 

 

Well, you really can't say anything to answer this but "This is dumb", but saying that an argument's dumb doesn't negate it.

 

Well, at least it's not a floating PIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't packs a punch, there's hardly an impact except an inference that "elitism is bad"

It's not strategic in any way, it doesn't set up any strategic K strategy (ex: alt solves case, K turns case)

 

The 2AC stands up and wins the debate by simply arguing

 

"elitism good" - which will be an easy win for the sole fact judges are at a disposition to vote for education good - qualifications good

 

Or how about perm do plan? You can advocate the entirety of their evidence without their author - all of the warrants are still there and your kritik doesn't refute any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree a large section of generic K answers are that experts are good, almost any team will have that, so they will have answers to your K. Now you can still win, but they will probably have some very specific and sophisticated reasons experts are good so you will have to make your argument equally sophisticated. However, that is why people usually read evidence because it is actually quite hard to make a sophisticated and nuanced K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't packs a punch, there's hardly an impact except an inference that "elitism is bad"

It's not strategic in any way, it doesn't set up any strategic K strategy (ex: alt solves case, K turns case)

 

The 2AC stands up and wins the debate by simply arguing

 

"elitism good" - which will be an easy win for the sole fact judges are at a disposition to vote for education good - qualifications good

 

Or how about perm do plan? You can advocate the entirety of their evidence without their author - all of the warrants are still there and your kritik doesn't refute any of them.

 

ok thank you i understand now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something you can potentially do is an ethics argument saying justifications for doing something from a big other are bad. Something of that sort is outlined here: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2010-2011+%E2%80%94+Edgemont+(NY)+%E2%80%94+Anik+Chaudhry+%26+XY. On neg it would work as PIKing out of their justifications.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the Speaking for Others Critique mixed with an Expertism critique (elites, pundits, and policy wonks bad). It seems to need work, however.

I think if you impact it with democracy--it might help. Although, it does seem to contravene the marketplace of ideas.

 

Currently experts trump non-experts.

 

Your argument seems to be that we should reverse this. (although I'm reading this in--I may not be correct) At the very least this framing is key.

 

I think its more viable to say they should be equal.

 

You might be better off looking at Ks empiricism and social science--to provide a more reasoned/viable/compelling argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost every argument about the world depends on the evidence we supply. Our evidence informs us and keeps us accountable. See here

 

No disads at all in debate... Is your only alternative really just to not make any policy arguments at all? Is this really what you want? The loss of educational value of debate is pretty apparent. This is all the reason needed to reject the critique, and I don't think you'll have much success with it.

 

Strong debaters have made radical arguments about our current form of debating. If you really want to argue that our evidence fills us with lies and that we need to liberate ourselves from current forms of debate, you could run Freire. But it seems to be the sort of argument that you have to believe to win, and it has poor results in high school level of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So my friends are thinking of making a K where they themselves are the author and they are criticizing the opponent putting their author voices above their own in other words they say that by talking through the author and not through our own voice's we disenfranchise our voices and make them useless and that in turn is dehumanizing and their alternative is to reject Aff. Seriously they said this is a try or die argument cause it must be run by itself and i really think it bad honestly in 30 seconds .

 

This sound a bit like what some of MCA says. At least the stealing voices part..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So my friends are thinking of making a K where they themselves are the author and they are criticizing the opponent putting their author voices above their own in other words they say that by talking through the author and not through our own voice's we disenfranchise our voices and make them useless and that in turn is dehumanizing and their alternative is to reject Aff. Seriously they said this is a try or die argument cause it must be run by itself and i really think it bad honestly in 30 seconds i thought that as debater we know automatically no one debate the same from another and so the way we articulate our arguments and form the images of scenario in our judges head on consequences that will occur when the plan is rejected, this is our voice we have not disenfranchise it and in fact the Neg has disenfranchise us by taking that away from us the voices we once held to shape debates through our own words and understanding of the arguments. Pleases reply telling me if it bad, is it good, can it be improved upon, or is it a lost cause.

 

Might as well just read the Mao cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Tomak put it best, most people are going to win that you're bad for debate. Just run norm

 

With Mao cards. Promise it works.

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...