Capitalism Advantage

[FlashJ596 25]

hey people. Im in need of guidance from the forum. The affirmative my partner and I are running is OCS drilling affirmative, and we decided that we should make a Cap advantage but after a few weeks, all its turned into was cap defense and cap good. Does anyone have any ideas of how i could structure this advantage? (i don't believe it could be structured like a normal advantage). Any advice would be great!

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

Wait, are you trying to defend cap? That's not a good idea for an advantage...and well the opposite isn't really either. Can you be more specific about what you're trying to accomplish?

[FlashJ596 25]

Well we have had cap k ran against us alot in the past. So we decided to just make the advantage as a defense. The advantage talks about oil production being the new face for cap. And that new face of cap solves multiple things (war,disease,and other things)

[Miro 1470]

You shouldn't make a Cap advantage because of the uniqueness question, but if you have an econ advantage you'll have implicit impact turns.

[FlashJ596 25]

We made a econ advantage. and my partner tells me the uniqueness evidence is basically us creating a new progressive type of cap

[Snarf 3598]

We made a econ advantage. and my partner tells me the uniqueness evidence is basically us creating a new progressive type of cap

Don't read it as an advantage, read it as link turns in the 2AC and perm solvency. If your aff somehow hurts capitalism, wait till they claim "capitalism bad" to prove it.

[FlashJ596 25]

Ok I appreciate the help from you all.

[Payton 450]

1. If you read an econ advantage, don't say you hurt cap, say you reform it (consumption patterns, VTL, etc.) 

2. Don't read a cap advantage, not only is cap bad, as Miro said, its SUPER non-unique 

3. It's cap. If they're a good cap team, an advantage won't help, if they're a bad one, you're fine anyway

4. Cap is just really bad. No advice here, just an opinion. 

[Hannahkiin 418]

I know a couple people who would have a field day with this. But even I, the self-declared USN CP enthusiast/one who's rather bad at K's, can say is that cap is the most generic K ever, and you can probably do better. If you want a cap pre-empt card in solvency, go ahead. Just don't make a cap advantage.

[FlashJ596 25]

ok thanks.

[FlashJ596 25]

I already scrapped the advantage for something better and added a cap card in solvency. thanks all   

[Snarf 3598]

I already scrapped the advantage for something better and added a cap card in solvency. thanks all   

would not do this.

[FlashJ596 25]

why not?

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

why not?

Because it's just not a good idea. First off, unless you're running some weird reverse K aff then a cap good argument at all is just a bad idea (in the 1ac). Second, claiming you solve cap is going to just send you down a rabbit hole.

 

Just because people run an off case position against you doesn't mean you should preempt in the 1ac. I'll probably hit black socialism multiple times at my tournaments, that doesn't mean I'm going to put answers to Cornell West/Robinson in my 1ac. You're 1ac needs to be about the actual case itself, make it stronger. The 2ac is for responding to things.

 

There are certain times where it makes sense to preempt things in the 1ac, like decriminalization on the college topic, but this isn't one of those times.

Edited October 6, 2014 by SnarkosaurusRex

[Payton 450]

why not?

Because it's like the equivalent of saying "Contention 3 is Come at me bro"

[Hannahkiin 418]

Because it's like the equivalent of saying "Contention 3 is Come at me bro"

 

Why did I have to run out of positive votes today.

[Theparanoiacmachine 1676]

Because it's like the equivalent of saying "Contention 3 is Come at me bro"

I'm too down for this tbh

[FlashJ596 25]

well we ran it at our last tournament . people ran the generic cap k and neo lib k and we smoked them on that   i guess we running it as a way to bate them into debating it whether its good or bad   and we beaten every team that took the bait and ran those Ks against us but i understand what you are all saying and it will be changed

[BernieSanders 1775]

Because it's like the equivalent of saying "Contention 3 is Come at me bro"

 

You write that as though it's a bad thing. 

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

You write that as though it's a bad thing. 

I have yet to see cap good evidence that's either better warranted than the corresponding cap bad evidence or not just something vacuous like 'get off the rock' or AI (although I have won on these arguments...)

[Snarf 3598]

Yeah not gonna lie I read "contention four I double dog dare you to go for politics" and then three minutes of thumpers my freshman year. That aff was 17-0 when it retired.

[Phantom707 1012]

Snarf, on 06 Oct 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

 

Yeah not gonna lie I read "contention four I double dog dare you to go for politics" and then three minutes of thumpers my freshman year. That aff was 17-0 when it retired.

I think that the difference is that it's harder to kritik the representations of politics thumpers than of cap good. Then again, your contention probably would've invited something like an anthro K for your use of an animal metaphor, but I don't know how that played out for you.

[Snarf 3598]

I think that the difference is that it's harder to kritik the representations of politics thumpers than of cap good. Then again, your contention probably would've invited something like an anthro K for your use of an animal metaphor, but I don't know how that played out for you.

You're right that it's harder to kritik politics thumpers than cap, and OP  should keep that in mind (and not read a cap good contention).

 

Two other things -

 

"Double dog dare" is not a negative animal metaphor (it's actually not a metaphor at all; it's an alliteration) so there's no link.

 

The kritik of capitalism is also likely not a representations kritik (in fact, representational answers are usually the 2AC's because of JK Gibson-Graham's writing).  

[Phantom707 1012]

You're right that it's harder to kritik politics thumpers than cap, and OP  should keep that in mind (and not read a cap good contention).

 

Two other things -

 

"Double dog dare" is not a negative animal metaphor (it's actually not a metaphor at all; it's an alliteration) so there's no link.

 

The kritik of capitalism is also likely not a representations kritik (in fact, representational answers are usually the 2AC's because of JK Gibson-Graham's writing).  

These are not my personal views, and I do agree with you on a practical level.

 

"So you're using the imagery/representation of a dog for your purposes? Doesn't that reinforce the mindset that dogs are there for humans to use as we see fit?" Or something like that. I know some debaters who would take unction at the very use of animal metaphors, regardless of whether or not it's positive.

 

And I also very much agree that most kritiks of capitalism aren't based on representations. However, I have seen such run (and run a couple of such links myself). This one is a bit more persuasive. It's like "They didn't even need to mention capitalism [good] in the 1AC. And yet they did so regardless. First, they shouldn't be able to sever out of their representations. Second, this proves the feasibility of the floating PIK argument. The plan is not intrinsically tied to capitalism, so if we can prove that there's a negative effect of this representation of capitalism, we should automatically win the debate."

 

Or something like that. I'm not saying it's the most persuasive, but it's a thought.

[Snarf 3598]

"So you're using the imagery/representation of a dog for your purposes? Doesn't that reinforce the mindset that dogs are there for humans to use as we see fit?" Or something like that. I know some debaters who would take unction at the very use of animal metaphors, regardless of whether or not it's positive.

 

And I also very much agree that most kritiks of capitalism aren't based on representations. However, I have seen such run (and run a couple of such links myself). This one is a bit more persuasive. It's like "They didn't even need to mention capitalism [good] in the 1AC. And yet they did so regardless. First, they shouldn't be able to sever out of their representations. Second, this proves the feasibility of the floating PIK argument. The plan is not intrinsically tied to capitalism, so if we can prove that there's a negative effect of this representation of capitalism, we should automatically win the debate."

 

Or something like that. I'm not saying it's the most persuasive, but it's a thought.

I think these are both good starting points. I don't think either argument is ultimately availing, but they certainly suggest lines of thought which deserve exploration.