Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When I was forming an answer to Alt doesn't solve for the K, I came to thinking,

 

"Does this discourse doesn't solve argument apply to the 1AC?"

 

Because the 1AC is engaging in discourse, so that must mean that the 1AC also does not solve.

 

Is this right, or am I extending this beyond regular perceptions?

 

Or is there something that says that philosophical discourse is ineffective and policy discourse, and passing of the 1AC, solves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan is what's usually supposed to solve. This is where role playing and fiat come in. In a standard case, your speech act isn't what's supposed to do anything, you're pretending that you have the power to pass your plan. That's why you have solvency.

 

TLDR: Unless you're a K-Aff, then you're fine.

Edited by Atlas0Smirked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no!!! See, I thought I wouldn't have to mangle with Fiat.

 

Some people have told me that Fiat is uneducational because it's not real world, and then we go down the rabbit hole of Theory.

 

Oh well; at least I retain solvency.

 

*I just thought of saying that it's not the Aff's fault the word "should" gives me the power to be a witch and cast Ven. Oil into existence.

The plan is what's usually supposed to solve. This is where role playing and fiat come in. In a standard case, your speech act isn't what's supposed to do anything, you're pretending that you have the power to pass your plan. That's why you have solvency.

 

TLDR: Unless you're a K-Aff, then you're fine.

Edited by adrianmorquecho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Does this discourse doesn't solve argument apply to the 1AC?"

I make this argument when people read it against me. I think that fundamentally "discourse doesn't solve" is a stupid argument -- discourse (pretty much talking) can lead to action. Bills don't get passed in congress without discourse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I make this argument when people read it against me. I think that fundamentally "discourse doesn't solve" is a stupid argument -- discourse (pretty much talking) can lead to action. Bills don't get passed in congress without discourse.

Eh it kind of depends what kritik you are running. Some arguments discourse probably does actually do something but I think that's pretty rare. When something becomes a commonplace strategy it becomes a strategy you are trying to win with. I think that discourse is probably more impactful if you actually believe what you are saying. Not that you can't believe what you are saying and try to win as well I just think it's uncommon. 

 

Also I'm not sure how you frame that argument the aff isn't deriving solvency from talking about the aff, unless they are running a straight up K-aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh it kind of depends what kritik you are running. Some arguments discourse probably does actually do something but I think that's pretty rare. When something becomes a commonplace strategy it becomes a strategy you are trying to win with. I think that discourse is probably more impactful if you actually believe what you are saying. Not that you can't believe what you are saying and try to win as well I just think it's uncommon. 

 

Also I'm not sure how you frame that argument the aff isn't deriving solvency from talking about the aff, unless they are running a straight up K-aff.

But in this imaginary fiated world, the plan would not be passed without the use of discourse even the "ayes" used to vote in favor of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I make this argument when people read it against me. I think that fundamentally "discourse doesn't solve" is a stupid argument -- discourse (pretty much talking) can lead to action. Bills don't get passed in congress without discourse.

 

The argument, in my opinion, seems to be that discourse ALONE doesn't solve. If the alt is a lot of talking, nothing really happens. Policy actions that actually engage the political are needed. That's broadly how my 2AR looks on that point

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some people have told me that Fiat is uneducational because it's not real world, and then we go down the rabbit hole of Theory.

 

 

If fiat is uneducational because its not 'real world' then debate is not educational because its also not 'real world' and by extrapolation, that also means that critiques have no more or less value than policy and fiat.  There is ZERO reason to prefer topic-unique education of policy over critique or vice verse, capitalism over human rights, or nine scenarios of nuclear war over feminism.  The value of education in debate is not based on content - it is in the act and spirit of competition; aka the clash driven by critical thinking.  And in that vein of thought, since most critiques these days really don't clash with anything the 1ac ever said, then by definition, the critiques, important thoughts in a vacuum, are largely debate-non-educational.

Edited by Ankur
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument you are targeting:

 

The challenge with discourse solvency is that it favor what we think about language/speech and action.  And the evidence that Ks read is at least mediocre on this point.  So in an offense/defense paradigm--the evidenced argument generally trumps the assertion that "discourse doesn't solve."

 

Here, the notion of awareness or consciousness raising. It helps prevent us from making bad language choices or helps us understand the other or respect the other.  There is a pro-social change, pro-education bent to such arguments.

 

As a side note, it may not be that language creates reality....but rather shapes it....That our overall worldview

 

Plus, there are often independent voter type arguments (even if not flagged this) for the rejection of the aff language--which are independent reasons beyond the solvency of the alt.

 

Lets look at your options:

 

There is evidence that the "Sapir-Wharf" hypothesis isn't true.  I'm not sure how far this argument gets--and the discourse argument is really larger.

 

Also there is evidence that suppressing language causes a host of problems.  Thats the evidence you want to go after.  Admittedly some of those assume suppressing probably without an alternative language (for instance suppressing the T-word, without an alternative like "freedom fighter").  Or at least you can make those arguments. The notion of "policing language" may be just as bad or worse than the language in the first place.  However, not all Ks are discourse centric or alternatives could be say to "police language."  At some level, a lot of this evidence falls in to the Political Correctness movement bad arguments.  (i.e. speech codes on college campuses) which arguably has some parallels to K debates.

 

Basically I would read a decent amount in those literatures.....and make your argument based on that.  Or make a historical comparison or a comparison to an event almost all humans experience or think to be true.

 

There are arguments like that here, http://www.cross-x.com/topic/55773-responding-to-a-word-pic/   (Note: Language needs institutions to solve.....still doesn't really get what you need, I don't think)

 

If you search Butler on the forums you may run across some of the language policing arguments I talk about.  Also, you might also search that.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

longish post incoming, too lazy to tl;dr:

 

we are high schoolers (or college students) in a dimly lit room of whatever school decided to host this week's tournament. clearly nothing we say will have an immediate & direct impact on congress (or else we'd have 28 space elevators already amirite), but employing fiat allows us to engage with the policy ideas and determine their desirability/viability. there is a definite educational value that can be gained by engaging in these arguments. perhaps there is some policy value in engaging in policy debate (former debaters go on to political/legal positions) but for the most part, we participate in debate to learn and not to influence policy. in this sense, policy discourse is good because we learn. it is "not good" because it doesn't change the world at a macro level.

 

while the other posts have gone pretty into depth about discourse and what it means for discourse to be effective, i don't think you understand what the "discourse solves" argument means. 

 

(for simplicity, i am assuming policy aff and critical neg strategy. of course, you could instead have a critical aff and a policy fw neg.)

for most kritiks, when the critical team says 'our discourse solves,' what they mean is that they recognized and have engaged with the specific issue (feminism, racism, etc), whereas the affirmative has not. remember that policy debate doesn't change policy? engaging these social issues at micro-levels, within each debate round, can create grassroots change. while our discourse in-round won't allow obama to pass a new civil rights bill, we can influence everyone in the room with our arguments; five people (4 debaters and the judge) leaving the round with a better understanding of able-ism/capitalism/etc is a preferable outcome to not having that discourse.

 

to some extent, you have touched upon the thesis of the (admittedly terrible) zompetti/community forums counterplan: if discourse solves the impact then we should have separate forums to discuss the issue, rather than spending our debating time discussing the issue.

 

i'm not sure if i agree with ankur over whether policy vs critical arguments should be preferred (i somewhat lean towards preferring critical education but see the argument for neutral ground) but definitely agree on the importance of clash, though that is not entirely relevant to this thread. real world education is sort of interesting, i guess but who really has a good definition of 'real world'?

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...

×
×
  • Create New...