Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Smarf

Kicking Advocacy?

Recommended Posts

I was wondering how legitimate this is? In a round against a Militarization aff I read Hillman with 3 links: 1 to space weapons, 1 to China and 1 to terrorism, but in the block I answered the turns and conceded everything else and I stated that the conceded China link and Terror link are case turns and I added a pan impact to China (the original was pan too) and a terror impact to the terror link.

 

What do I have to look out for when kicking the advocacy like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you are going for in the block. Normally you just need to extend a defensive no link arg like the perm, answer theory like framework, and then respond to any args that they can leverage on the DA if you're going for one. So, if they say realism true, that can potentially effect the impacts you're going for (econ interdependence solves war, for example) or it can bolster the risk of theirs depending on their scenarios.

 

What you did was probably fine though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This arguably puts you in a different position with respect to their permutation. Arguably severence is justified (or at least thats a grey area if they assert that argument).

 

2. It depends on your impacts for the arguments moving forward. (ie what commitments by have been made which cue the judge impact calculous--theory & advocacy wise)

 

Well....I think you have to define advocacy (or the why of advocacy in debate--particularly critique debates--static vs. flexible)....and provide reasons why you would have kicked those arguments (some of which speak to the issue of advocacy). How might aff & neg advocacies be different? Is this analogous to kicking out of aff arguments in the 2ac or 1ar?

 

I realize this is obvious, but read a number of dispo/condo good arguments (perhaps this will inspire you argument wise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^no idea what that is saying.

Now to answer OPs question. IF i grant that you correctly kicked out of the rest of the k (dont worry, It sounds like you did) AND successfully win the impact debates then this is probably and issue with uniquness - thats why you read the alt in the first place - if you kick that alt (or advocacy, or cp, or whatever) jyou have to have a way to control the direction of the uniquness of what ever impacts your turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This arguably puts you in a different position with respect to their permutation. Arguably severence is justified (or at least thats a grey area if they assert that argument).

 

2. It depends on your impacts for the arguments moving forward. (ie what commitments by have been made which cue the judge impact calculous--theory & advocacy wise)

 

Well....I think you have to define advocacy (or the why of advocacy in debate--particularly critique debates--static vs. flexible)....and provide reasons why you would have kicked those arguments (some of which speak to the issue of advocacy). How might aff & neg advocacies be different? Is this analogous to kicking out of aff arguments in the 2ac or 1ar?

 

I realize this is obvious, but read a number of dispo/condo good arguments (perhaps this will inspire you argument wise).

 

The permutation is incoherent if the negative team does not advance an alternative. What is there to permute? I suppose one could argue that the argument that the aff as debated "meets" a framework for decision is a "permutation" of a negative's framework argument, but I would remind you of the definition of a permutation: a legitimate permutation is the combination of all of the aff's advocacy and some or all of the negative's (a decision framework is not an advocacy). If done correctly, a negative can concede the permutation debate, only eliminating the aff's permutation and the neg's alternative, without eliminating the links to the K. There may be some exceptions to this, but none come to mind.

 

I don't understand the poster's second point- I think you may have some confusion on debate fundamentals. Kicking an alternative can easily be a viable strategy even if there is no external impact to the criticism. If a negative team is decisively winning that the aff's explanation of their internal link chains is backwards (aka a strong turns the case argument, not a weak/general one), then the negative could win the debate without an external impact or an alternative.

 

I agree with the poster who commented that kicking the alternative may generate uniqueness problems for your criticism, given that it is likely not very unique. However, I think it is important to note that establishing a strong decision calculus, or framework, for the judge to use to decide which impacts to prioritize provides an alternative way to generate a "unique" impact, in the sense that you have reframed what it means for an impact to be unique, or established a framework that eliminates the question of uniqueness.

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...