Jump to content
fdsdfwe

Contradicting arguments.

Recommended Posts

So like most I was planning on reading an Anthropocentrism K next year. However the K also has a fear of death spin to it. Is it abusive/normal to run other contradicting arguments. Ie a couple of disads with human extinction etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like most I was planning on reading an Anthropocentrism K next year. However the K also has a fear of death spin to it. Is it abusive/normal to run other contradicting arguments. Ie a couple of disads with human extinction etc...

The main problem is you link into the K, but I am not huge on kritiks so you may be able to make them conditional and kick whichever one your opponents have more attacks on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont do it, seriously. Not only will the K become reason not to vote on the DA, but because you link to the K, voting neg probably fails in the context of the alt. Also, you can get hit hard with perf con and probably lose there.

 

Dont.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The risks of getting yourself into the whole "K links back into DA" debate greatly outweighs the benefits. I think it goes beyond the whole preformative contradiction/condo debate. Even if you win that, there's still a risk of you losing on some kritik turns disad argument. I mean, do what makes you happy, but I wouldn't advise reading anthro and multiple disads that claim extinction. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not run something like a Bio-D DA, or use a different impact card like the extinction of all species. If you're going for something like generic warfare then it shouldn't be that hard to prove, and can be leveraged as another link to the K if you spin it like "they don't even care what their plan will do to the animal world."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contradicting advocates are just bad in general.

 

... though I am the king of reading cap and spending at the same time unconditionally 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advice in this thread so far is too generic.  Contradictory arguments are a SUBSTANTIVE issue, not a THEORETICAL one.  I have a feeling your death link argument is something like "demarcating difference between living and dead bodies constructs a community of the living that is the foundation of exclusion/destruction of animals" which is a link argument about human perception of life and death and how that frame extends to other political spheres (whether its how the USFG subsidizes genocidal CAFOs, or an argument about nuclear preemption, or just an argument about subjectivity).  This criticism, then, is a reason why the 1AC in a vacuum was flawed.  It is a "prior question" in the sense that before we can even debate about the desirability of the plan we must first establish what values are desirable and what goals we should be trying to attain.  If you win they aff ought not have framed their 1AC with the topoi of death, then you win the debate regardless of whether you did as well because you have won the rest of the debate is irrelevant.  If they win that death is meaningful and we should always be concerned with preventing it, then you have a debate within that framework.  People used to call these "gateway issues".  

 

Just remember, the criticism always precedes the substantive components of the 1AC because you are first and foremost saying "before we go any further, we need to investigate these set of assumptions" while the CP/DA are a test of the advocacy assuming its assumptions hold true.  If I said "we should go to the new chinese restaurant tonight" I get to say "I don't think that restaurant is open, and even if they are I want a hamburger tonight" which is both a test of the assumption AND the substance.

 

The thing to take away here: never ask questions about theory in a vacuum.  Always consider the specific context.  Unpackage your arguments and try to suss out any contradictions or tensions within them to see if there are substantive problems with the 1NC/block/2NR strategy.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright cool. We read multiple links though. 1 just saying they're anthro and then 1 fear of death link. If we read biodiversity impacts and if we frame them right. They won't be contradictory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advice in this thread so far is too generic.  Contradictory arguments are a SUBSTANTIVE issue, not a THEORETICAL one.  I have a feeling your death link argument is something like "demarcating difference between living and dead bodies constructs a community of the living that is the foundation of exclusion/destruction of animals" which is a link argument about human perception of life and death and how that frame extends to other political spheres (whether its how the USFG subsidizes genocidal CAFOs, or an argument about nuclear preemption, or just an argument about subjectivity).  This criticism, then, is a reason why the 1AC in a vacuum was flawed.  It is a "prior question" in the sense that before we can even debate about the desirability of the plan we must first establish what values are desirable and what goals we should be trying to attain.  If you win they aff ought not have framed their 1AC with the topoi of death, then you win the debate regardless of whether you did as well because you have won the rest of the debate is irrelevant.  If they win that death is meaningful and we should always be concerned with preventing it, then you have a debate within that framework.  People used to call these "gateway issues".  

 

 

yeah. I think that you will only lose ethos if you read contradictory arguments. IE if the aff is drones and you read ptx with a nuke war scenario but also read the kato k, the linking to itself argument doesn't warrant an aff ballot. That's only a reason to vote neg on presumption. The problems occur when the impacts between args turn each other. like TPA and cap/neolib. I think from an academic/performative standpoint it's probably not good to link to your own criticism. (using glang and reading discourse k's) But you have to worry less than if they turn each other.

Edited by ethank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found there are two important considerations when running contradictory advocacies. (1) are any links performative? (2) could the other side concede one as an impact turn to the other?

 

The first - its harder to de-link (both intellectually and ethos-ly) from a position you've spoken when you argue that speech acts matter.

 

The second - I'll give a clarifying example. An old coach of mine liked to read the Cap K and a politics disad with an econ impact in the 1NC. One round, a smart 2AC conceded the politics disad, said that solved the cap K, and won the round easily. There are examples of contradictory advocacies which can't be conceded as impact turns, though. For example, if I read an EU CP and then a colonialism kritik against a "develop Mexico" aff, I have a contradictory strategy. However, the 2AC couldn't concede the kritik (or the CP) and argue that one solved the other. The only consideration there is winning the condo debate and not going for both in the 2NR.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I just disagree with these type of strategies ethically, and if you hit a critical team worth half their snuff they will critique you for reading contradicting advocacies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I just disagree with these type of strategies ethically, and if you hit a critical team worth half their snuff they will critique you for reading contradicting advocacies.

Switch Side debate good! http://www.rwesq.com/the-1nc/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switch Side debate good! http://www.rwesq.com/the-1nc/

Status quo switch side debate is not "engaging the resolution from your specific social location", and certainly reading contradictory advocacies in the same speech is not what Rashad is defending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright cool. We read multiple links though. 1 just saying they're anthro and then 1 fear of death link. If we read biodiversity impacts and if we frame them right. They won't be contradictory

As someone who runs anthro this way, the fear of death card is not a link if its the baudrillard one.  Its an independent K that can be extended on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah. I think that you will only lose ethos if you read contradictory arguments. IE if the aff is drones and you read ptx with a nuke war scenario but also read the kato k, the linking to itself argument doesn't warrant an aff ballot. That's only a reason to vote neg on presumption. 

 

Why?  The Kato argument on face is dumb but aside from its internal contradictions the thesis of your position lacks a warrant.  

1. I don't think you know what presumption is because it's definitely not something that just switches sides based on arbitrary rules.

2. While something like the apocalyptic reps K links to the neg's DA, the collective link just proves all policies defended with apocalyptic discourse should be rejected, leaving the negative with the status quo and the affirmative with nothing, in which case the affirmative loses the debate because they have not proven a change against the status quo is desirable.  The core question is really whether or not the affirmative can sever their representations, but that's not a presumption or perf con issue, it's a competition one.  

3. What does it mean to lose ethos?  Debaters lose credibility when they do not understand advanced strategies or deploy them poorly.  A debater who has thought through the tensions between multiple positions should never be at risk of losing ethos and instead should be able to gain credibility by swiftly and expertly navigating the banal and empty complaints by the aff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. While something like the apocalyptic reps K links to the neg's DA, the collective link just proves all policies defended with apocalyptic discourse should be rejected, leaving the negative with the status quo and the affirmative with nothing, in which case the affirmative loses the debate because they have not proven a change against the status quo is desirable.  The core question is really whether or not the affirmative can sever their representations, but that's not a presumption or perf con issue, it's a competition one.  

I'm a bit confused by this scenario. If both teams equally link to the argument, and the affirmative still has its affirmative to weigh, wouldn't one vote for the Affirmative?

 

Either way, in the case of critical perf con- it would still apply.

Edited by Miro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused by this scenario. If both teams equally link to the argument, and the affirmative still has its affirmative to weigh, wouldn't one vote for the Affirmative?

 

Either way, in the case of critical perf con- it would still apply.

 

It depends if the affirmative has anything left to weigh, although in the case of a reps K that both teams bite, I'm guessing you're right and they probably do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switch Side debate good! http://www.rwesq.com/the-1nc/

I only read that article, and I'm not sure where Harrigan's original post is or the what the context of this debate is, but i thought Harrigan had been for SSD/against reps debate.  His frickin thesis was titled "a defense of Switch Side Debate."  Has he changed his views or is he taking the alternate position for the purpose of this debate (which would raise some interesting contradictions)

 

also, has Giroux ever said SSD/debate divorced from personal convictions bad (he's cited by Harrigan that way)?  I think he'd actually be for that to a certain extent.

 

I also find it interesting that Rashad doesn't really argue we should argue divoriced but personal conviction, but rather should find ways to be topical that jive with your personal feeling.  That actually negates a lot of his own offense about SSD.  I also wish he went a bit more in depth on what "black SSD" exactly is

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only read that article, and I'm not sure where Harrigan's original post is or the what the context of this debate is, but i thought Harrigan had been for SSD/against reps debate.  His frickin thesis was titled "a defense of Switch Side Debate."  Has he changed his views or is he taking the alternate position for the purpose of this debate (which would raise some interesting contradictions)

 

also, has Giroux ever said SSD/debate divorced from personal convictions bad (he's cited by Harrigan that way)?  I think he'd actually be for that to a certain extent.

 

I also find it interesting that Rashad doesn't really argue we should argue divoriced but personal conviction, but rather should find ways to be topical that jive with your personal feeling.  That actually negates a lot of his own offense about SSD.  I also wish he went a bit more in depth on what "black SSD" exactly is

 

 

I'm not sure either way on Harrigan's genuine view. Here's one of the speeches: http://msudebate.blogspot.com/2012/11/1ar-ssd.html and the response: http://www.rwesq.com/the-3nr/. I couldn't find the "1AC" of this debate, though, or its invitation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused by this scenario. If both teams equally link to the argument, and the affirmative still has its affirmative to weigh, wouldn't one vote for the Affirmative?

 

Either way, in the case of critical perf con- it would still apply.

 

NO!  Both TEAMS do not equally link, this is an issue of argument and advocacy.  The criticism says "we shouldn't enframe the debate with representation X" (where X is death, nuclear weapons, extinction, whatever).  The neg says that, but also says "if however the aff is right and we should use that type of frame, here are reasons the aff still loses" which is a contingency argument.  It is an "even, if" situation.  So we have a few options:

1. The neg wins the K and the aff wins the DA links as well.  If this is the case we reject the aff and the DA, not just the DA, and the aff team is left with no advocacy.  Regardless of what the negative has, if the aff has not proven a change against the status quo is good they lose the debate on presumption.  The epistemology of both the DA and the case are flawed and should be rejected, neither TEAM is being rejected.  The aff loses due to presumption as a state based effect.  

2. Nuanced link analysis challenges the concept of "equally link".  If the link is "policies should not be advocated with this discourse" then the neg links less if they were only defending that change was bad (defending the status quo).  

3. If the aff merely beats the K (or the smart negative team kicks out of the K correctly), then it becomes a moot question.  If there is no impact to particular reps or they don't shape reality or whatever else, then the 1NC criticism is no longer important to the decision calculus of the round.

 

In any possible scenario the tension between the K and the DA is moot.  As I said earlier, this analysis does not account for the tension between the arguments generating permutation ground for the aff, but that is a question of competition which is not the same as contradictory arguments.  

 

It depends if the affirmative has anything left to weigh, although in the case of a reps K that both teams bite, I'm guessing you're right and they probably do.

 

Why would the aff have anything left to weigh if they link to the criticism?  Either they have just beaten the K to prove the aff is true, in which case the issue of contradictory positions is totally irrelevant, or they still lose to the K in which case the negative wins the debate because the aff is bad and the judge shouldn't endorse it (the scenario I outlined above).  You aren't thinking through this critically - in debate there are many moving parts but you have to always keep the technical jargon in line with the content of your arguments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?  The Kato argument on face is dumb but aside from its internal contradictions the thesis of your position lacks a warrant.  

1. I don't think you know what presumption is because it's definitely not something that just switches sides based on arbitrary rules.

2. While something like the apocalyptic reps K links to the neg's DA, the collective link just proves all policies defended with apocalyptic discourse should be rejected, leaving the negative with the status quo and the affirmative with nothing, in which case the affirmative loses the debate because they have not proven a change against the status quo is desirable.  The core question is really whether or not the affirmative can sever their representations, but that's not a presumption or perf con issue, it's a competition one.  

3. What does it mean to lose ethos?  Debaters lose credibility when they do not understand advanced strategies or deploy them poorly.  A debater who has thought through the tensions between multiple positions should never be at risk of losing ethos and instead should be able to gain credibility by swiftly and expertly navigating the banal and empty complaints by the aff.  

um we may be on slightly different pages with regards to my opinion but here's the LBL.

1: if you win the reps of the plan are wrong-the way we protect against nuclear weapon strikes causes strikes you vote neg. if you win that the reps of the plan are bad and that the plan causes war through a stronger i/l you vote neg. There are obviously internal contradictions with this specific position. It was just the first k that came into my head. IE: the internal link story for the DA is probably a turn or a realism card i guess. Like war can happen? idk I mean the kato k isn't just war won't happen it's different. Maybe I should have just put security k. When did I ever say it switches sides? 

2. yeah- if the aff loses the plan on the k it's a presumption ballot. Even if you have another DA on a different flow that might interact. I don't think it's really the aff severing reps in the perf con arg. 

3. losing ethos is losing credibility. If you read a k that kritiks protection against extinction and you have 2 DA's and 1 impact turn with extinction level impacts you lose ethos. I mean I guess the gain/lose is judge pref, but I would not want to hear a fem k on one flow and gendered language. Obviously glang isn't argumentative, but I think you get the point. 

 

Edit: when I said "glang isn't argumentative." I meant that the use of gendered language is performative; the speech act consists of gendered language. GLang is an argument, but it is a question of the debaters not the plan. (?) 

Edited by ethank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would the aff have anything left to weigh if they link to the criticism?  Either they have just beaten the K to prove the aff is true, in which case the issue of contradictory positions is totally irrelevant, or they still lose to the K in which case the negative wins the debate because the aff is bad and the judge shouldn't endorse it (the scenario I outlined above).  You aren't thinking through this critically - in debate there are many moving parts but you have to always keep the technical jargon in line with the content of your arguments.  

 

Because the K criticizes the representations of plan, and usually only part of plan.  The plan still has effects.  Those effects can be good. 

 

No one has ever alleged that the aff will be "proven true".  I don't even know what that means.  The aff will tell several stories ("advantages") about why doing the aff would be a good idea.  If you run 'representations of terrorism bad', and terrorism is only a small part of the affirmative story, that's a lot of remaining case that isn't affected at all. 

 

Representations are something that happens in the round.  If both affirmative and negative make bad representations, the K isn't a reason to prefer either of them.  Effectively, when the K bites a DA (or a CP or whatever), it means the negative has reneged on any pre-fiat alt and any rethinking alt, because they *didn't avoid the bad reps* themselves, and thus didn't actually adopt the alt they said they were going to.  That leaves the 'fiat world', where we have to consider the actual consequences of plan vs. the articulated SQ.  

 

I'm not going to say its a guaranteed Aff win, but most of the time the Aff will have parts of plan that don't have bad reps, and since the neg performative contradiction takes out their policy offense and makes the K a wash (equally bad on both sides), whatever is left of plan wins.

 

(A representations K does not prove the plan is bad, it proves the representations used are not a justification for doing plan.  Those are totally different things.  Unless the reps K is impacted in the policy world in a way that turns case, its justification for voting neg is pre-fiat, and the perfcon kills that.  And most people don't seem to want to impact their reps Ks in the policy world in my experience, which is a shame, because they're much better arguments that way).

 

Edit: Honestly, biting your own reps bad K is probably worse than the Aff biting it, and a reason to vote Aff by itself.  You *knew* those representations were bad, and you made them anyway. 

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • 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...

×
×
  • Create New...