Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luminite2

Definitional Kritik

Recommended Posts

Note: I considered putting this in the Theory, Topicality, and Critiques forums. Eventually I decided that I would gain the most from K debaters, because I don't deal with them very much at all.

 

 

http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/Topicality+Standards+-+Nick+Rogan

^This is a very good lecture about Topicality standards, and has 3 main parts. SeniorCorpsHay originally posted it in a thread about contextual definitions, which is what the 1st part is about. However, as you are all theoretically K debaters, you should check out the 2nd section.

 

I highly recommend watching it, but if I expected everybody to do it then this thread wouldn't get anywhere, so I'll summarize what he said.

 

The idea was to run a normal Topicality violation, definition/interp and whatnot, but under Standards when you're saying why to prefer your definition, you run what essentially amounts to a K of their definition. The example that he gave was on the alternative energy topic against nuclear power affs: the argument was that nuclear power very well may be good, but calling it alternative energy was not. This had something to do with the general feelings toward and buzzword status of the term 'alternative energy,' and the danger in making people more receptive toward using stuff based on nuclear fission (like nukes). This would then be impacted like a traditional K (if that isn't an oxymoron), and you would hopefully win T because your impact would be extinction, or something similarly large.

 

I found this very interesting, so I was wondering what you all thought about it. Messing around with the idea, I (haphazardly) blocked out 2 distinct ways of going about making this argument for this year's topic. I used Asteroid Mining as the target for this, but it could theoretically be anything.

 

The first way, which feels very shaky and I'm not at all sure of, went something like this:

 

Asteroid mining constitutes resource exploitation solely for human benefit (just look at their Advantages of resource wars and extinction)

Including instances of resource exploitation in the definition of space exploration would associate public opinion towards space explo. with public opinion toward exploiting nature

Public opinion towards space exploration is favorable; most who dislike it only do because it expends resources [card]

Therefore, accepting their definition (which says that mining is topical) would make people more accepting of anthropocentric resource exploitation; connotation is all about association

[insert generic 'anthropocentrist exploitation bad' impacts here]

Alt: Reject their definition.

Alt solvency: A loss on T doesn't (necessarily) say that the plan is a bad idea; it just says that including it in the definition of space exploration is bad.

Also, allowing the consideration of pragmatic actions while denouncing mindsets that harm the environment is the only way to ensure both teams' impacts [card]

 

This would include some 'role of the ballot' stuff, and thus be susceptible to (what I believe to be) a significant weakness of critiques.

 

The 2nd structure, which I like a bit more but which is also more policy-oriented, goes like this:

 

[same stuff on how mining = exploitation]

So, including asteroid mining in the definition of space exploration is to include resource exploitation for human benefit

Space exploration, regardless of the formal definition used for debate, is fundamentally about continued human existence and survival [card]

The USFG classifying asteroid mining as space exploration would be to advocate that treating nature as property to be exploited is necessary for human survival

[same anthro impacts here]

 

Alt:[same]

 

Alt solvency: [same]

 

The 'role of the ballot' stuff is not necessary, as long as you win that passing the plan would include affirming its topicality (which is doable, but would require thought).

 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts? Even if my examples suck, is the general idea potentially workable/strategic?

Keep in mind, what I detailed above I made in like 20 minutes. If possible, I'd like to avoid 'I think this is a horrible idea' posts in favor of those more like 'this would only be workable if you did this.' I have no experience debating K's, and this might not even be the best forum for this, but I'm curious as to what people think.

 

Note: the lecture goes into more detail about this type of argument, if my explanation was lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why this is a T violation. "Violation: you link to my K"? topicality is supposed to be a procedural. Instead of interpretation you just replace that with "link" and you have K shell.

 

I guess I just don't understand why calling it Topicality is useful. It sounds like a dirty word K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a T violation; it's a definitional standard. "Prefer our definition, because including their plan in the phrase 'space exploration/development' is bad."

No, not a dirty word K either... Watch the lecture; he does a good job of explaining it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I considered putting this in the Theory, Topicality, and Critiques forums. Eventually I decided that I would gain the most from K debaters, because I don't deal with them very much at all.

 

 

http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/Topicality+Standards+-+Nick+Rogan

^This is a very good lecture about Topicality standards, and has 3 main parts. SeniorCorpsHay originally posted it in a thread about contextual definitions, which is what the 1st part is about. However, as you are all theoretically K debaters, you should check out the 2nd section.

 

I highly recommend watching it, but if I expected everybody to do it then this thread wouldn't get anywhere, so I'll summarize what he said.

 

The idea was to run a normal Topicality violation, definition/interp and whatnot, but under Standards when you're saying why to prefer your definition, you run what essentially amounts to a K of their definition. The example that he gave was on the alternative energy topic against nuclear power affs: the argument was that nuclear power very well may be good, but calling it alternative energy was not. This had something to do with the general feelings toward and buzzword status of the term 'alternative energy,' and the danger in making people more receptive toward using stuff based on nuclear fission (like nukes). This would then be impacted like a traditional K (if that isn't an oxymoron), and you would hopefully win T because your impact would be extinction, or something similarly large.

 

I found this very interesting, so I was wondering what you all thought about it. Messing around with the idea, I (haphazardly) blocked out 2 distinct ways of going about making this argument for this year's topic. I used Asteroid Mining as the target for this, but it could theoretically be anything.

 

The first way, which feels very shaky and I'm not at all sure of, went something like this:

 

Asteroid mining constitutes resource exploitation solely for human benefit (just look at their Advantages of resource wars and extinction)

Including instances of resource exploitation in the definition of space exploration would associate public opinion towards space explo. with public opinion toward exploiting nature

Public opinion towards space exploration is favorable; most who dislike it only do because it expends resources [card]

Therefore, accepting their definition (which says that mining is topical) would make people more accepting of anthropocentric resource exploitation; connotation is all about association

[insert generic 'anthropocentrist exploitation bad' impacts here]

Alt: Reject their definition.

Alt solvency: A loss on T doesn't (necessarily) say that the plan is a bad idea; it just says that including it in the definition of space exploration is bad.

Also, allowing the consideration of pragmatic actions while denouncing mindsets that harm the environment is the only way to ensure both teams' impacts [card]

 

This would include some 'role of the ballot' stuff, and thus be susceptible to (what I believe to be) a significant weakness of critiques.

 

The 2nd structure, which I like a bit more but which is also more policy-oriented, goes like this:

 

[same stuff on how mining = exploitation]

So, including asteroid mining in the definition of space exploration is to include resource exploitation for human benefit

Space exploration, regardless of the formal definition used for debate, is fundamentally about continued human existence and survival [card]

The USFG classifying asteroid mining as space exploration would be to advocate that treating nature as property to be exploited is necessary for human survival

[same anthro impacts here]

 

Alt:[same]

 

Alt solvency: [same]

 

The 'role of the ballot' stuff is not necessary, as long as you win that passing the plan would include affirming its topicality (which is doable, but would require thought).

 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts? Even if my examples suck, is the general idea potentially workable/strategic?

Keep in mind, what I detailed above I made in like 20 minutes. If possible, I'd like to avoid 'I think this is a horrible idea' posts in favor of those more like 'this would only be workable if you did this.' I have no experience debating K's, and this might not even be the best forum for this, but I'm curious as to what people think.

 

Note: the lecture goes into more detail about this type of argument, if my explanation was lacking.

 

tl;dr

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong. I believe you are trying to make this argument as a definitional standard. I think it would be more effective as an impact to Topicality. I will provide an example.

 

Voting Issue for Fairness, Education, and Anthro.

 

When we include their aff as apart of exploration then we are upholding anthro that is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not at all wrong; it is a standard.

 

Saying T is a voter for extinction certainly does sound cool, but the argument would be that only voting Aff (and accepting their definition that includes mining in 'space exploration') brings about extinction. I think that this fits better as a standard, which is why one definition should be preferred over another. Since the whole argument revolves around the effects of accepting one definition over another, I think that it fits better as a standard. However, I certainly could add it to the voter section as well: 'T is a voter for human survival' or something, just as long as it's also included in the standards section.

 

What I find funny, Kinkaid, is that dziegler has like 4600 more posts than you do, yet yours had sooo much more substance...

Thanks for actually reading my post; I appreciate it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using K arguments as standards is a great idea. It reminds me of the antiframework that someone (Millard South?) used to read, which said that the affirmative must defend a kritikal interpretation of the resolution.

 

That said, the specifics of this idea are pretty weak. The definition which is used for topicality in one round will not spill over into the public sphere and create a mindset of anthropocentric exploitation, and also that's nonunique and the alternative won't solve other instances of antropocentrism, which probably means that the education gained from debating about asteroids outweighs. Additionally, "PERM: recognize that asteroid mining is a part of space exploration while rejecting the idea that exploitation is good" would be extremely difficult to beat because both are simultaneously possible.

 

Try to find a better implementation of the overarching idea behind this and you'll catch teams off guard with an extremely clever argument.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos: That was a very helpful post; thank you.

 

The definition which is used for topicality in one round will not spill over into the public sphere and create a mindset of anthropocentric exploitation, and also that's nonunique and the alternative won't solve other instances of antropocentrism, which probably means that the education gained from debating about asteroids outweighs.

 

That's weird... This sounds just like any other critique!

 

But, jokes aside... You're right. That's why I prefer the 2nd structure, which avoids a tradition K "role of the ballot, fiat is illusory" mindset in favor of a more policy-based framework: "An Aff ballot means that the plan is put into effect, and is called space exploration; this is bad." Instead of focusing on the 'real world' effects of an Aff ballot, it focuses on the hypothetical consequences of putting the plan into effect via an Aff ballot.

 

 

 

 

Additionally, "PERM: recognize that asteroid mining is a part of space exploration while rejecting the idea that exploitation is good" would be extremely difficult to beat because both are simultaneously possible.

 

I agree, such a permutation would have very good solvency. However, I would argue that the bolded portion is intrinsic, and thus inadmissible. I may be wrong though.

 

I would really like to see if something like this would be workable; what are ways in which the 2nd, policy-based structure could be improved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, such a permutation would have very good solvency. However, I would argue that the bolded portion is intrinsic, and thus inadmissible. I may be wrong though.

 

I would really like to see if something like this would be workable; what are ways in which the 2nd, policy-based structure could be improved?

Every reason that a K team can give as to why the affirmative should have to defend all of the 1AC is a reason that the negative should be stuck with the advocacies of all of their cards. The advocacy of the K is more than just the alternative text, just as the advocacy of the 1AC is more than just the plan text. It's impossible for the negative to read this K standard without taking the position, even if only implicitly, that anthropocentric mindsets are bad. This means that the perm is probably legit.

 

The alternative to this concept results in negative teams getting easy wins through "Do Nothing" alternatives with bad link cards because a permutation of action and inaction is logically impossible and any other permutation is rejected as intrinsic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every reason that a K team can give as to why the affirmative should have to defend all of the 1AC is a reason that the negative should be stuck with the advocacies of all of their cards. The advocacy of the K is more than just the alternative text, just as the advocacy of the 1AC is more than just the plan text. It's impossible for the negative to read this K standard without taking the position, even if only implicitly, that anthropocentric mindsets are bad. This means that the perm is probably legit.The alternative to this concept results in negative teams getting easy wins through "Do Nothing" alternatives with bad link cards because a permutation of action and inaction is logically impossible and any other permutation is rejected as intrinsic.

 

First of all, thank you for pointing out this perm business; it hadn't originally occurred to me.

 

The main reason why I would tend to disagree with this post is because, to me, it seems like it assumes that Affs have to be able to perm in order to win. I think that this is not the case, especially if the Neg has bad link cards, like you say.

 

However, again, I have very little experience in this area, and so it's possible that I'm overlooking something that I don't know buy you do. If that's the case, and such a permutation is indeed legitimate, then what would be the benefit of a counterperm that was something like "Reject the idea that exploitation is good, and recognize that asteroid mining is not part of space exploration" ? All of the perm's solvency from rejecting exploitation is still captured, as well as all of the original alt's solvency from recognizing that mining isn't part of exploration (and thus that exploitation isn't necessary for survival). An additional NB could be stem from the fact that saying that mining is exploration, and therefore necessary for survival, directly conflicts with saying that exploitation isn't good. There are cards about conflicting morals being counterproductive that could theoretically be used for this purpose. Would such a counterperm be both legitimate and solvent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The net benefit to the counterperm is extremely weak. It's entirely possible to be morally consistent while saying that mining asteroids to stop extinction is justified even though it exploits nature and exploiting nature is bad. So long as you claim that extinction outweighs exploitation, there is no contradiction.

 

I'm not saying that the ONLY way for the affirmative to beat the K is to perm, but the permutation is a sometimes strategic option that shouldn't be eliminated due to negative shiftiness with the alternative text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, do you have any suggestions or ideas for ways to tweak the overarching idea into a more workable format, that would avoid a situation where the alt can be easily permed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately no.

 

You should start by reading the literature and then seeing if it can fit into this type of argument, instead of starting by attempting to force any literature you find into this format. That way you'll have a better argument.

 

That's not very good advice, but I'm not doing policy this next year so I don't have much else to offer.

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...