Jump to content
Solax10

What was your first K?

Recommended Posts

So as the bigger tournaments are coming up in my circuit, my partner and I are starting to look into the basic K's. So what was your first K? A short description would also be super helpful.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schopenhauer- life sucks and we should just accept the extinction scenario and die. read it at novice state. won a round on it. wouldn't do it again.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absurdism - you keep trying to do things but the world just doesn't give a damn, so #dealwithit. Went for it twice at a houston tourney last year - won a round and lost in finals, poo

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schopenhauer- life sucks and we should just accept the extinction scenario and die. read it at novice state. won a round on it. wouldn't do it again.

Haha one of the old policy people has a Schopenhauer K in the backfiles, what were the main arguments against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absurdism - you keep trying to do things but the world just doesn't give a damn, so #dealwithit. Went for it twice at a houston tourney last year - won a round and lost in finals, poo

Interesting, what was the impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was first exposed to security, for two reasons:

1. My freshman year was the military (Aka Security) topic

2. The seniors on my team were obsessed with Security because they want to the SDI Paul Johnson lab that cut a Security K.

3. I was in that same lab the year after, and my lab cut a Security K then too. 

 

Security K= threats in IR are constructed by the US (fear-mongering) due to an us-them dichotomy with rogue states/terror groups/other nations like China/etc. The entire K is just how realism and the idea of states competing is just constructed by the US as an excuse for war, or that the security mindset inevitably pulls us into wars. That's the most simple description of it, anyways.

 

Other Ks I was exposed to first:

1. Absurdism was really cool too. Camus for the win!

2. Positive Peace K - we imagine peace as the absence of war, which is bad. Peace should be imagined as a time where humanity cooperates

3. Cosmopolitanism K - the world is one big community, not separate nationstates

4. Capitalism

5. Frontier K - space is our frontier!!

Edited by ktg9616
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was first exposed to security, for two reasons:

1. My freshman year was the military (Aka Security) topic

2. The seniors on my team were obsessed with Security because they want to the SDI Paul Johnson lab that cut a Security K.

3. I was in that same lab the year after, and my lab cut a Security K then too. 

 

Security K= threats in IR are constructed by the US (fear-mongering) due to an us-them dichotomy with rogue states/terror groups/other nations like China/etc. The entire K is just how realism and the idea of states competing is just constructed by the US as an excuse for war, or that the security mindset inevitably pulls us into wars. That's the most simple description of it, anyways.

 

Other Ks I was exposed to first:

1. Absurdism was really cool too. Camus for the win!

2. Positive Peace K - we imagine peace as the absence of war, which is bad. Peace should be imagined as a time where humanity cooperates

3. Cosmopolitanism K - the world is one big community, not separate nationstates

4. Capitalism

5. Frontier K - space is our frontier!!

Could you explain the Absurdism and Frontier K for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha one of the old policy people has a Schopenhauer K in the backfiles, what were the main arguments against it?

life doesn't suck. death bad. etc. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest K to cut is pretty much:

1) Coersion/Libertarianism/Objectivism (aka taxation is theft & goverment regs are bad, bad, bad & human dignity is key & don't use man/woman as means to an end)

We didn't have an alternative beyond reject for the K and the K really doesn't need one per se.

 

Soon after I cut:

1) Feminist International Relations (based on parts of 2 books)

 

2) Threat Construction/Realism K/Security K (based on On Security)

 

I've cut a number of Ks since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absurdism is something my partner and I devoted tournaments specifically to debate it as a one off K neg strat. "The impact to absurdism", is more a debate about the meaning of life. Essentially, one would embrace the absurdity of life, to finally move past, traverse if you will, questions of the value of life, fear of death, and the threat of morality and impermanence of mankind's works. LIterature is mainly from James Park and other secondary sources (that i cannot remember...) and, predominantly, cites the works of Albert Camus. Albert Camus founded absurdism and articulated its differences from existentialism. I can send you a 1nc i read slowly. If you're interested just PM me

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nietzsche: Suffering is inevitable, that means instead of viewing life as shitty you should view it as something uniquely beautiful that shouldn't be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death Cult: Basically saying that the aff team bringing death impacts into debate (through trivilization and body count) is bad and should be rejected. Its usually framed as a theory argument about the introduction of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solax - here was the 1NC shell I used to read. I decided not to read it as much because I didn't feel that it was that strong an argument, but then I didn't invest a ton of time into cutting my own stuff for it so I could definitely have been wrong about that (and probably am)!

 

 

 

Uncertainty and insecurity are inevitable – chaos is the permanent state of existence. The aff’s attempt to impose order onto a world that is not and cannot be ordered creates and reinforces the existential anxiety of our time, causing totalitarianism.

Gordan ‘03(Kerry, PHD psychology of philosophy/ director of research center on chaos/uncertainty, “The Impermanence of Being: Toward A Psychology Of Uncertainty†Journal of Humanistic Psychology 2003; 43; 96) 

I have a recurring dream: I am lost at sea. Murderous waves crash down, a gale howls. Barely able to stay afloat, I thrash about, panic-stricken. Without direction, I have no idea how to get to safety. The feeling is utter chaos. Desperate, I’m bailing like a madman, trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. I am, as Alice would say, running twice as hard as I can to stay exactly where I am. Through my confusion and despair, I hear whispered words, “Lord help me for my boat is so small and your sea is so immense.†This is the point when I inevitably wake up. Naturally, I am greatly relieved that it has only been a dream, until it dawns on me that there’s not much difference between my dreaming and waking life. Making my way through the dayI am indeed overwhelmed by a sea of detail that I can’t ever seem to get a handle on—family, finances, health, job—all the variables of my life rushing toward me in flood of chaotic uncertainty. This is not my beautiful lifeWhere are the security and order that was promised meAll my carefully constructed truths, everything I have counted on and identified with, seems suddenly false or lost or changing. And when I pick up the morning newspaper, there’s more. Not only my life but the whole world seems to be deconstructing. I’m back in my dream—drowning in a sea of uncertainty. Having practiced for many years as a psychotherapist, I have good reason to believe that I am not alone in my anxiety; it is common to a great majority of those of us living in the modern industrialized world. In Care of the Soul, one of the most widely read books of the past decade, psychologist Thomas Moore (1992) lists emptiness, a loss of core values, and the general malaise of meaninglessness as hallmarks of our culture. It is hard to deny Moore’s assertion. Only pick up a copy of Time magazine or turn on the TV. Everywhere we look, images of discord and dissent remind us that the political, economic, and social structures we once held as inviolable are rapidly erodingOur typical response to chaos is an instinctual drive to impose order and regain control. Our fear of uncertainty often impels us toward irrational and sometimes bizarre behavior. As in my dream where I am trying to empty the ocean with a bucket, such neurotic activity does little to assuage our anxiety and may even serve to increase it. And neither should we imagine that only individuals can be affected in this way. Stalinism, Nazism, McCarthyism, and fundamentalism of all stripes are examples of the kind of irrationality of which institutions and governments are capable in the name of order. Rollo May (1977) stated that totalitarianism “may be viewed as serving a purpose on a cultural scale parallel to that in which a neurotic symptom protects an individual from a situation of unbearable anxiety†(p. 12). His further statement that “people grasp at political authoritarianism in the desperate need for relief from anxiety†(May, 1977, p. 12) suggests that perhaps, in the end, it is precisely our resistance to chaos and uncertainty and our almost pathological need to impose order where there may, in fact, be none at all, that is the cause of so much of our dis-ease. I am reminded of the words of systems theorist Kenneth Boulding, who warned that we always “run into the temptation of imposing an order on the universe which may not really be there†(Stamps, 1980, p. i).

 

This drive for perfection causes a denial of what makes us human, oppression, and genocide.

Issac ‘89(Jeffrey, “Arendt, Camus and Postmodern Politics†PRAXIS International, issue: 1+2 / 1989, pages: 48-71)

This leads us to a second key feature of totalitarianism – its relentlessly ideological character. For both writers, ideologies are totalistic world views based upon a necessitarian logic. For Camus, the murderous systems of Stalinism and Nazism are both rooted in a kind of cowardice typical of the ideological mentality: “As soon as man, through lack of character, takes refuge in a doctrine, as soon as crime reasons about itself, it multiplies like reason itself and assumes all the aspects of the syllogism ... Ideology today is concerned only with the denial of other human beings, who alone bear the responsibility of deceit. It is then that we kill.“36 Camus calls the consequence of this “totalityâ€: “nothing other than the ancient dream of unity common to both believers and rebels, but projected horizontally onto an earth deprived of God.’’ Totality is a form of perfectionist politics premised upon the suppression of any and all human difference, dedicated with a murderous logic to the fabrication of uniformity. He writes:

[Totality] supposes a negation and a certainty: the certainty of the infinite malleability of man and the negation of human naturePropaganda techniques serve to measure the degree of this malleability and try to make reflection and conditioned reflex coincide . .. The experiment has not yet been brought to an end, but its principle is logical. If there is no human nature, then the malleability of man is, in fact, infinitePolitical realism, on this level, is nothing but unbridled romanticism, a romanticism of expediency. Ideology, purporting to articulate cosmic necessity, whether of World History or Aryan Destiny, demands the unequivocal submission of concrete human beings, who “are hostile to it in so far as human nature, to date, has never been able to live by history alone and has always escaped from it by some means.†37 Ideology is thus both figuratively and literally terroristic, insofar as its claim to absolute universality cannot tolerate the particularities which comprise the existing world. It is figuratively terroristic insofar as it entails a perpetual uncertainty regarding what precisely is “necessary,†an uncertainty affecting all but the sanctum sanctorum of the party elite, who alone can claim to speak for it with confidence in their “objective innocence.†And ideology is terroristic literally insofar as it licenses systematic murder.

 

The alternative is to vote negative to embrace the absurd. Purpose cannot require the judge’s authority nor can it be premised on success. Much like Sisyphus, only when we persist without expectation of reward can we celebrate life. For their 1AC to be meaningful, you should vote negative.

Lane, 1996. (Bob, Honorary Research Associate in Philosophy at the University of Vancouver Island, “The Absurd Heroâ€http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/absurd.htm)

Sisyphus is the absurd hero. This man, sentenced to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain and then watching its descent, is the epitome of the absurd hero according to Camus. In retelling the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus is able to create an extremely powerful image with imaginative force which sums up in an emotional sense the body of the intellectual discussion which precedes it in the book. We are told that Sisyphus is the absurd hero "as much through his passions as through his torture. His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing." (p.89). Sisyphus is conscious of his plight , and therein lies the tragedy. For if, during the moments of descent, he nourished the hope that he would yet succeed, then his labour would lose its torment. But Sisyphus is clearly conscious of the extent of his own misery. It is this lucid recognition of his destiny that transforms his torment into his victory. It has to be a victory for as Camus says: I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocksHe too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. (p.91). Sisyphus' life and torment are transformed into a victory by concentrating on his freedom, his refusal to hope, and his knowledge of the absurdity of his situation. In the same way, Dr. Rieux is an absurd hero in The Plague, for he too is under sentence of death, is trapped by a seemingly unending torment and, like Sisyphus, he continues to perform his duty no matter how useless or how insignificant his action. In both cases it matters little for what reason they continue to struggle so long as they testify to man's allegiance to man and not to abstractions or 'absolutes'.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism - initiation of violence bad, natural rights (sensu Locke) protection good.  Ran it with both minarchy and anarchy alts.  Fairly successful with it in LD, can't remember offhand policy results (used it a lot less there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap was the technical first, but the first K I read deeply into and cut by myself was Bataille: Fear of Death bad, trying continually solve extinction robs our innate right to death, they see life and death as a dichotomy of ethical and and evil where the evil must be destroyed which drains VTL because every moment is special because we could die any second. There's more to it but some advice I would give when starting to run kritiks, pick a K or K author you feel interested in, read up on him/her. and not only does it make debate fun for you to envision and critique different affirmatives with philosophies you're well versed on but you become confident in doing it and learn a lot about debating the K in general and open gates for new K lit you're interested in. (sorry if this had bad grammar or was unclear. i'm on my tablet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain the Absurdism and Frontier K for me?

Complexity is also a good K. I think people have explained Absurdism pretty well. Frontier K is basically a K of manifest destiny, that we have an inexorable wanting for expansion of our territory/power. In the 1800s, the US saw the West as the new frontier because of all of the new resources and land claims available, as well as the idea of exploring an "unexplored" land. This ended up being complete BS, as the area was previously claimed by natives. This frontier mindset caused things like the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Tippecanoe, and other massacres. Basically, the K says this frontier mindset is bad. On the space topic, it basically said that we see space as a frontier that we can use and exploit to our own advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complexity is also a good K. I think people have explained Absurdism pretty well. Frontier K is basically a K of manifest destiny, that we have an inexorable wanting for expansion of our territory/power. In the 1800s, the US saw the West as the new frontier because of all of the new resources and land claims available, as well as the idea of exploring an "unexplored" land. This ended up being complete BS, as the area was previously claimed by natives. This frontier mindset caused things like the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Tippecanoe, and other massacres. Basically, the K says this frontier mindset is bad. On the space topic, it basically said that we see space as a frontier that we can use and exploit to our own advantage.

Sorry to add on to this, but could you give an example of the complexity K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to add on to this, but could you give an example of the complexity K?

Someone earlier explained this, but Complexity is just a K of linear policy planning. I've always just thought of it as a combination of:

A) Internal links bad (even though I know it's more than this)

B) Predictions Bad 

C) Statistics and Experts bad

D) Alt Causes galore - there are too many factors that play into impacts that make it impossible to make a linear model for solving them

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone earlier explained this, but Complexity is just a K of linear policy planning. I've always just thought of it as a combination of:

A) Internal links bad (even though I know it's more than this)

B) Predictions Bad 

C) Statistics and Experts bad

D) Alt Causes galore - there are too many factors that play into impacts that make it impossible to make a linear model for solving them

I can't imagine this winning too many rounds. What is non-linear policymaking? This all seems pretty defensive to me.

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...