Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZombieMao

Very Kritikal Aff Question

Recommended Posts

If one is on aff and one is kritiking the whole resolution and doesn't read an advocacy statement or a plan text how does one defend that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain what you mean by "doesn't read an advocacy statement"... Is this some legitimately insane aff, like Dada or surrealism or something, or something so "de-limited" that you're not even stable in what you're advocating? (Then maybe you should lay off the crack.) Otherwise, you should be having some kind of "topic" of your affirmative, something you're discussing and debating about. That's what you would defend, and you would explain why it is more important than the other team's preconceived notion of how the round should go.

 

That's what the neg does when they read framework and T against something that doesn't sit well with them. "I thought the debate would go this way... I don't even know what you're talking about! Didn't prep for that!" Make arguments about whatever FW interp or T violation they have is dumb, why their model for debate is bad or at least why yours should be taken first, talk about why your particular mode of education / activism / whatever is best, whatever method you're using should give you substantive offense here I'd imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your actions within the round are your advocacy. This is usually presented in the form of your speech act, where you say that how you orient yourself to the resolution/the debate community/etc is your advocacy. This is your point of stability that "allows" for the neg to debate against you.

 

Beyond that, the aff can kritik the standard points of contention of framework arguments using their specific aff. One of the stupidest arguments I heard, from a natives aff, was that natives have no ground because it has been taken away from them, making the ground argument non-unique on the framework flow (I'm not saying that it's stupid to say that natives have no ground, just that it's stupid in the debate context because the neg loses their ground; also, non-unique arguments from a kritikal aff of this sort are extremely stupid in that they're arguing against structural violence). As another example, Wilderson affs kritik Western, European notions of fairness.

 

One comment that I've heard is that the "only" thing an aff of this sort can say is that they have the wiki, so that's how they're predictable. That's the only way in which the neg can be prepared at all to engage in such a discussion, so the argument ran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one is on aff and one is kritiking the whole resolution and doesn't read an advocacy statement or a plan text how does one defend that? 

 

It depends on the argument it makes. Typically, affirmatives that i've seen like this don't advocate a particular action, but do have a Role of the Ballot or Methodology that they want the judge to endorse as the best way to evaluate the round. They argue that the ballot recognizes the subject that they talk about, as well as possibly looking into ways to understand the nature of the 1AC harms better. I think the Aff that Ryan and Elijah read at the NDT is a good example of this kind of affirmative (these can range in discussions though), to give you some context.

 

Usually these Affirmatives do a couple of things: they kritik the way that we normally go about debatting or discussing the topic specifically. as part of this criticism, they tend to make arguments about why a normative defense of the resolution would be bad for the discussions we have--these arguments can be applied to Neg framework interps that restrict the way that we discuss the topic, and thus limit the different ways we can think and learn about it (again, these will always be germane to that particular aff to isolate internal links to better education/accessibility for the topic).

 

 

 

 

That's what the neg does when they read framework and T against something that doesn't sit well with them. "I thought the debate would go this way... I don't even know what you're talking about! Didn't prep for that!" Make arguments about whatever FW interp or T violation they have is dumb, why their model for debate is bad or at least why yours should be taken first, talk about why your particular mode of education / activism / whatever is best, whatever method you're using should give you substantive offense here I'd imagine.

 

In the case of an aff without any kind of advocacy statement (plantext or otherwise) you should try looking into Parametrics. From my experience, this is an argument that you should defend some kind of textual advocacy. going for this as a theory argument can lighten the load on the Aff offense that they'll want to cross-apply because it doesn't bind them to a normative defense of the topic, but you still get internals to things like limits, ground, predictability, etc.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of an aff without any kind of advocacy statement (plantext or otherwise) you should try looking into Parametrics. From my experience, this is an argument that you should defend some kind of textual advocacy. going for this as a theory argument can lighten the load on the Aff offense that they'll want to cross-apply because it doesn't bind them to a normative defense of the topic, but you still get internals to things like limits, ground, predictability, etc.

So parametrics is saying that the K aff could read an advocacy statement and still have defense on those standards while still being kritikal / marginally-T? That's not that bad of an idea, I'll look into that. I typically would just turn whatever standards they read, or have other forms of defense on them, but it could be nice to have even-if's on them. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give an example with the Ecofem Aff that I read on the Energy Topic this year, the aff essentially rejected the mechanisms and framework of the topic and affirmed an ecofeminist pedagogy vis a vis the environment, energy, etc.

 

 

Our interpretation for debate is that affirmatives must be restricted to instrumental, epistemic, and ontological affirmations of the resolution.

 

This means all discussion must be limited by the question of the mechanism and object(s) of the topic.

 

Offense on top:

Only three impact areas –

First is Predictable Ground –

a) Even if absolute predictability were possible it wouldn’t be desirable: debate would be an endless repetition of the same arguments without innovation or creativity – people leave the activity when it becomes stale, lifeless, and un-relatable.

 

b ) An instrumental policy is not the only predictable or the best point of stasis for debate vis-à-vis climate change, the best analysis are at earlier stasis points in argumentative progression that intersect between disparate fields. Jumping to the last stasis point of techno-scientific decision making means climate debates are always at an impasse.

 

Malone in 12 (Elizabeth LL; PhD Sociology @ U of Maryland, MA Comms @ Purdue, nobel peace prize winner 2007 for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc http://www.pnl.gov/science/staff/staff_info.asp?staff_num=5697  ; Debating Climate Change: Pathways through Argument to Agreement; p. n/a ebook; Google Books/Routledge)

 

One way to cluster the arguments is to determine where they are in terms of

AND

shared across the boundaries of science, social solidarity and politics/policy.

 

Second their Education is Bad

a) Repeats the Public/Private division: Patriarchy brackets out subjective marginalized epistemic positions as grounded in emotion as irrelevant while valorizing “objective†knowledge claims. Switch side doesn’t solve – instrumental focus always crowds out these forms of knowledge   

 

b ) Elite focus bad – it relies on problematic notions of human nature that restrict political agency and detract from local politics.

Plumwood in 7 (Val; Australian Research Council Fellow @ Australian National University, ecofeminist and founder of the ecological humanities; “Has democracy failed ecology? An Ecofeminist perspective,†Environmental Politics Vol 4 Iss 4; Taylor and Francis)

 

If liberal democracy (by which I mean the attempt to combine liberal principles of

AND

in the long run, the only source of hope for real improvement.

 

Third it disengages students:

a) Disembodied education leaves violent paradigms unchallenged and causes a backlash from the supposed receivers of knowledge.

Peers in 12 (Chris; Faculty of Education of Monash University; “Freud, Plato and Irigaray: A morpho-logic of teaching and learningâ€; Educational Philosophy and Theory,Vol. 44, No. 7; Ebsco Host)\

 

In the absence of historical and cultural signifiers, the reconciliation of teaching and learning

AND

of course, that the teacher who won’t listen similarly destabilizes pedagogical logic.)

 

 

b ) Switch side decouples advocacy from sincerity which normalizes neoliberal models of education.

Hicks and Greene in 5 (darrin and walter, LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens, cultural studies, vol 19 no 1)

But why dredge up this event ...and uptake of cultural technologies.

 

c) Your role as a judge and academic should be to advance the most ethical pedagogical approaches.

Kretz in 12 (Lisa; “Climate Change: Bridging the Theory-Action Gap†ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 17:2; MUSE)

 

Academic ethicists are uniquely ...political, economic, and social locations.

 

Next is our defense.

a) Predictable Ground: All topic research is directed at the objects of the topic as well as the topic mechanism. Since all research they believe predictable assumes a supply side framework then all research would be relevant offense or defense means virtually all disadvantages, case negatives, and K answers apply.

 

b ) Predictability doesn’t exist and is impossible to universalize: no universal standard and voting on framework can’t implement a static model of predictable debate

 

c) No objective standard for textual interpretation means you default to broad interpretations of the resolution

Gehrke in 98 (Gehrke, Pat J. "Critique arguments as policy analysis: policy debate beyond the rationalist perspective." Perspectives in Controversy: Selected Essays from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate (2002): 302)

Similarly, we might say that any policy debater who does not seek a critical

AND

interpretive, Berube's objective standard for encountering a text never can be met.

 

 

d) Switch side is a myth: teams never truly switch sides – teams will read framework on the aff and neg to preserve their preferred ground.

 

e) No Impact to Topic Education: The function of tournaments is to advance the most valuable pedagogical and epistemic methods and proposals derived from that research.

 

Don’t Evaluate this Debate based on Competing Interpretations; Default to Reasonability:

a) Infinitely regressive: so long as we don’t follow their interpretation to the ‘t’ they will always find some minute distinction to limit us out – reasonability solves

 

b ) Predictable Ground is not Preferred Ground: No right to your favorite arguments only to debates limited by the topic area. Voting against us a big penalty. They should have to win that we have made debating impossible

  • Upvote 1

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...