Jump to content
HAM

Floating PICs?

Recommended Posts

So this year doing Kansas state 4-speak, we were running Venezuelan oil on aff. Where I am from, there isn't a lot of exposure to kritiks and advanced theory. Still, my partner and I are fairly well versed in K and CP theory, but apparently not well enough. The neg team that we hit ran cap, which, even with minimal k experience, I understood fairly proficiently. The k was pretty simple. It had an alt of distributionism, but not any isolated text or anything.

 

So out of absolutely nowhere, the 2NC is telling the judges to pull the trigger on the "floating pic." This never came up in the 1N. I didn't flow it - neither did my partner. We were super confused, and when we asked the 2N what his floating pic meant, the kid just looked at the two experienced judges, they both nodded, and since they knew what it was, he just went on ranting about something else without answering. 

 

We lost, picking up the lay judge and dropping the 2 experienced judges - they voted on the pic... 

 

What did we lose on???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a floating PIK is plan inclusive K. like a regular K it says something about the 1AC is bad, but not necessarily the plantext. so if you read an aff with a heg advantage that claims to solve for china war and i read Pan (china threat con bad), i might say that the judge voting neg doesn't mean the plan can't happen. lifting the Cuba embargo isn't bad according to the K but the threat construction of china is, so the judge can vote neg to do the alt and the plan minus the bad reps. this works best with rep Ks/language Ks, but it can work with a lot of args.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in this scenario it is not a PIC (plan inclusive counter plan), but rather, a floating "PIK". Plan inclusive kritik. I'm not to good on this yet, but I believe it is just "do the plan without x representations". I could be and probably am totally wrong though. So we will wait for someone else.

 

Edit: yay I was kinda right :D

Edited by TimeCube4Lyfe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a floating PIK is plan inclusive K. like a regular K it says something about the 1AC is bad, but not necessarily the plantext. so if you read an aff with a heg advantage that claims to solve for china war and i read Pan (china threat con bad), i might say that the judge voting neg doesn't mean the plan can't happen. lifting the Cuba embargo isn't bad according to the K but the threat construction of china is, so the judge can vote neg to do the alt and the plan minus the bad reps. this works best with rep Ks/language Ks, but it can work with a lot of args.

So with this argument, does the neg have to articulate what exact part of the plan they don't do in order to avoid the bad reps? 

Because in the context of my round, I was dumbfounded at how he could still embrace the plan of Venezuelan oil at all without embracing cap. Did I just get gypped by not knowing what this was at the time? Or could that still have been ran as a decent arg in this debate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you probably just got caught off guard. a lot of the time with cap/neolib it's hard to make a floating PIK. in the round you were in if you had known what a floating PIK was you probably would've just been able to stomp them in crossx. if the link for the K is something along the lines of economic engagement=cap then a floating PIK doesn't really work because the plan links to the K. PIKs generally work when the neg reads a K of something in the 1AC that isn't tied to the plan. if the plan is bad then you can't do the plan and the alt. often times the floating PIK arg will be made in the 2NC. i don't know what happened in your round, but you said they didn't have an alt text, so i feel like the team you hit was probably being sketch.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with this argument, does the neg have to articulate what exact part of the plan they don't do in order to avoid the bad reps? 

Because in the context of my round, I was dumbfounded at how he could still embrace the plan of Venezuelan oil at all without embracing cap. Did I just get gypped by not knowing what this was at the time? Or could that still have been ran as a decent arg in this debate? 

From a policy standpoint it could have been something like invest but keep it nationalized. Investment isn't something exclusive to capitalism contrary to what seems to be popular belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with this argument, does the neg have to articulate what exact part of the plan they don't do in order to avoid the bad reps? 

Because in the context of my round, I was dumbfounded at how he could still embrace the plan of Venezuelan oil at all without embracing cap. Did I just get gypped by not knowing what this was at the time? Or could that still have been ran as a decent arg in this debate? 

 

Shame on the experienced judges for letting them get away with not explaining it to you.  I probably would have dropped them for in-round abuse if you had even hinted at that being unfair in a speech.

 

You should make theory arguments that the PIK is illegitimate without an advocacy statement, and there's decent theory that PIKs aren't legitimate at all.  You can even make theory arguments that if the judge thinks the plan is a good idea, that's reason to vote aff - The PIK is proof of lack of competitiveness between the K and the Plan.  (Ie, its basically: "Perm: Do Both").

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a floating PIK in the scenario you just described is incoherent.  Cap is usually about the material outcomes of the pans, not representations.  Its capitalist to invest in venz oil, not to talk about investing venz oil.  

 

I agree with squirelloid, shouting "vote on the floating PIK" without describing what the PIK is not a reason the judge should vote for it.

Usually PIKS aren't phrased as counter-advocacies, but rather that the plan text and the alt aren't mutually exclusive and/or the alt results in the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a floating PIK in the scenario you just described is incoherent.  Cap is usually about the material outcomes of the pans, not representations.  Its capitalist to invest in venz oil, not to talk about investing venz oil.  

 

I agree with squirelloid, shouting "vote on the floating PIK" without describing what the PIK is not a reason the judge should vote for it.

Usually PIKS aren't phrased as counter-advocacies, but rather that the plan text and the alt aren't mutually exclusive and/or the alt results in the plan

Not necessarily. While the standard Venezuela case is to get them to drop the nationalizations and embrace capitalism, simply investing is not.

From Cambridge dictionary: "an economic system based on private ownership of property and business, with the goal of making the greatest possible profits for the owners"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/capitalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for future reference:

How do you go about developing this in the 2N? Does it not need a text or some type of advocacy statement? would you just kinda write one and read it off in the 2?

Does it just become a new flow off of the K proper? 

Is a perm the only type of offense that you can respond to this with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for future reference:

How do you go about developing this in the 2N? Does it not need a text or some type of advocacy statement? would you just kinda write one and read it off in the 2?

Does it just become a new flow off of the K proper? 

Is a perm the only type of offense that you can respond to this with? 

A bad team would say "We still do the plan in the world of the alt, just not with the X provisions/representations which are extrinsic to the plan" while a good team would write a whole 1/2 minute block about how switching from the methodology of the 1AC towards that of the negative would solve the case better - YOU NEVER EXPLICITLY SAY THAT THE K SOLVES THE CASE - you sort of imply it, if you would, trying to convince the judge that a paradigm shift is needed (i.e. Reject the neoliberal ideology of the affirmative team) and then you IMPLY that in the world of the alt, you can still do the plan (i.e. lift the embargo/invest in venezuealean oil) without neoliberal policies 

 

You've probably noticed by now that Floating PIK is literally just the negative reading an overly-complicated (sometimes) version of the "Perm - Do Both" argument that the aff usually makes in the 2AC - so just go straight up theory, if the alt resutls in the plan than its not competitive, and push on why the Perm that you read in the 2AC is literally what they're advocating and run some theory on why "No Alt Text" K's are bad for education and fairness (i.e. the round you described above)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a floating PIK is plan inclusive K. like a regular K it says something about the 1AC is bad, but not necessarily the plantext. so if you read an aff with a heg advantage that claims to solve for china war and i read Pan (china threat con bad), i might say that the judge voting neg doesn't mean the plan can't happen. lifting the Cuba embargo isn't bad according to the K but the threat construction of china is, so the judge can vote neg to do the alt and the plan minus the bad reps. this works best with rep Ks/language Ks, but it can work with a lot of args.

 

 

If plan solves heg and heg probably causes threat con, would the PIK have a net benefit? It seems to me like heg makes Pan super non-unique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when i say a heg advantage i mean like a heg good aff. solving china war i get from the generic kagan card everyone reads that says china is a growing threat. so the plan don't solve for heg, it solve heg. as in maintains it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If plan solves heg and heg probably causes threat con, would the PIK have a net benefit? It seems to me like heg makes Pan super non-unique

 

Influence/unipolarity distinction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Influence/unipolarity distinction?

 

Influence would usually be Soft Power, not Heg, but idk how other areas are using the terms these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this year doing Kansas state 4-speak, we were running Venezuelan oil on aff. Where I am from, there isn't a lot of exposure to kritiks and advanced theory. Still, my partner and I are fairly well versed in K and CP theory, but apparently not well enough. The neg team that we hit ran cap, which, even with minimal k experience, I understood fairly proficiently. The k was pretty simple. It had an alt of distributionism, but not any isolated text or anything.

 

Uhm, what? If this is what I think it is, I may actually be extremely qualified in answering what happened here, but could you elaborate on what the alternative was and what evidence they used?

 

One answer that I don't see others mentioning in this thread is that this begs the question of judge choice. If the judge really can vote for the plan with non-capitalistic representations (which is what the negative is trying to do), then why can't the judge vote aff for the same reason? Yes, there's the whole severance debate, but then you're talking about severing representations, not words from the plan text. This is definitely not the best answer, but if more information is given on the alt, I can maybe help out more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, what? If this is what I think it is, I may actually be extremely qualified in answering what happened here, but could you elaborate on what the alternative was and what evidence they used?

 

One answer that I don't see others mentioning in this thread is that this begs the question of judge choice. If the judge really can vote for the plan with non-capitalistic representations (which is what the negative is trying to do), then why can't the judge vote aff for the same reason? Yes, there's the whole severance debate, but then you're talking about severing representations, not words from the plan text. This is definitely not the best answer, but if more information is given on the alt, I can maybe help out more.

 

haha phantom sounds so excited. I bought it too :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, what? If this is what I think it is, I may actually be extremely qualified in answering what happened here, but could you elaborate on what the alternative was and what evidence they used?

 

Okay. Yeah, i do realize that it was distributism. Honestly, I can't tell you what exactly he read. I didn't pick up too much of the distributism evidence because the alt debate was super short and fairly muddled in the context of the round. They didn't actually extend much of it. I know that sounds wrong to say, but he didn't spend much time on the actual alt - he kinda used his whole rebuttal for the "my pik solves case" type of stuff. 

 

Bad teams - OMG ALT SOLVES CASE, move on

 

Good teams - alt solves case, link debate proves competition

 

They were the bad team...

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...