Jump to content
jswegthefuture

Delay CP Vs. K Affs

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I was wondering what the consensus on reading a Delay CP against K-affs is. To contextualize: assume that the case flow is litered with immediate heg scenarios that result in extinction (those k-affs that kind of destroy heg). And, being a k-aff, there's no warrant as to why the advocacy needs to be immediate. I seriously feel like reading these immediate heg turns, along with a delay cp claiming that we'll peacefully transition into multipolarity in 5 years (or something like that, along those lines) so we should do the aff then, would be awesome. But I had three questions before I start cutting this (sketch) strat:

 

1. How sketchy is it to delay cp a K-aff (assuming that I can tie them to immediacy)? Like, I understand that it is really sketchy to delay cp a policy aff w/ a politics net-benefit, but is it more abusive and sketchy (somehow) to do it to a k-aff? And if so, why?

And on a sidenote - do you think that generic delay cp theory blocks would do, or are there any tweaks that I would have to make?

 

2. Are there any processes that I can advocate (to delay CP a k-aff) instead of straight up saying "wait x years"? Like, I know that some college debaters, instead of explicitly delaying it, would read a process cp that had a delay as a result of the process. Are there any process CP's that would functionally create this delay to a K-AFF? (I know that this might be a little hard, given that I haven't specified the K-aff, but I can clarify if necessary)

 

3. Is this strat strategic?

 

Thx a lot.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I was wondering what the consensus on reading a Delay CP against K-affs is. To contextualize: assume that the case flow is litered with immediate heg scenarios that result in extinction (those k-affs that kind of destroy heg). And, being a k-aff, there's no warrant as to why the advocacy needs to be immediate. I seriously feel like reading these immediate heg turns, along with a delay cp claiming that we'll peacefully transition into multipolarity in 5 years (or something like that, along those lines) so we should do the aff then, would be awesome. But I had three questions before I start cutting this (sketch) strat:

 

1. How sketchy is it to delay cp a K-aff (assuming that I can tie them to immediacy)? Like, I understand that it is really sketchy to delay cp a policy aff w/ a politics net-benefit, but is it more abusive and sketchy (somehow) to do it to a k-aff? And if so, why?

And on a sidenote - do you think that generic delay cp theory blocks would do, or are there any tweaks that I would have to make?

 

2. Are there any processes that I can advocate (to delay CP a k-aff) instead of straight up saying "wait x years"? Like, I know that some college debaters, instead of explicitly delaying it, would read a process cp that had a delay as a result of the process. Are there any process CP's that would functionally create this delay to a K-AFF? (I know that this might be a little hard, given that I haven't specified the K-aff, but I can clarify if necessary)

 

3. Is this strat strategic?

 

Thx a lot.

 

noooooo y u do this to me

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

noooooo y u do this to me

 

For those who don't know the context, the OP is rayman's brother. 

 

Also, CHEATERS GO HOME 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - It won't work against performance teams, because the impact is in-round.

 

2 - For kritik teams that fiat an aff, this is probably fair game. By using fiat themselves, they've ceded any question of fiat's legitimacy. You then must win that (1) the aff collapses heg NOW instead of eventually collapsing it (since if it took 20 years, they'd win that they don't trigger the impact since the transition happens in 5 years) and (2) that the consideration of hegemony outweighs the continued oppression of those people identified by the aff. That's hard to do - a lot of literature specifically criticizes the "kill to save" mentality embodied in pursuing an abstract greater good at the cost of immediate suffering - and strategically you'd have to have a framework for evaluating impacts that comes out in your favor (which means you'd have to answer role of the ballot questions, "always reject X at any cost" arguments, epistemology/ontology/VTL first arguments, etc). 

 

That's the strategy part, and I think the less important part. The more important part is the social impact that making this type of argument may have on the debaters in the round. If a Black aff debater starts with a narrative about a family member being shot by police, are you really comfortable telling that debater to just hold on a few more years of being murdered because hegemony is good? The inherent distaste in that argument is that it - as an argument - attacks a part of the debater that is related to the argument. I know the gut response - that debaters should take a step back from their arguments - but not all debaters have that privilege. How could a Black debater - who lives in a country that institutionally murders a Black man every 28 hours - be disconnected, neutral, or disinterested in arguments about Black murder? Nor is the alternative to only discuss arguments that lack any personal connection, because that structurally eliminates discussion of racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other identity politics argument. That educational harm is a disadvantage to "must be neutral" approaches to debate.

 

Thus, if debate is not a neutral space, it's important to make it a safe space. I think a component of your CP - as articulated - goes against that by minimizing the significance of the suffering identified in the aff. It's easy to tell someone to suffer a little harder when you're not that person. 

 

The better way to do this - instead of a delay CP - is as a "reformism kritik" with an alt that's functionally like a delay CP. You can argue (quite effectively) that reformist strategies have the advantage of not collapsing social institutions that keep people safe. That makes the same substantive argument (and has the same substantive position) without sounding like "heg outweighs racism". 

 

Make sense?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if they defend Fiat, you should really read a commissions CP (basically delay, but it also avoids ptx) with a ptx DA and they probably wont have anything besides a K of delay or ptx which is weak sauce and you can tell them they are obviously wrong (defend process focus)(10/10 would also read EIS CP with a Racism or enviro net ben). If they read a k aff without defending a plan, then instead of doing this strat with a counterplan which is non competitive, just say hegemony is good and leftists crash it (I'm sure somebody has been reading the kagan good K to steal cards from). There is a good chance they are so self righteous that they will K hegemony if you say heg good on the neg instead of no linking (if i know one thing, its K debaters have an undying obligation to say not to america which lets you make it an impact turn debate). When that happens you should totally tell them heg outweighs (because war and util and all) and turns the case because russia and china are definitely worse for black people or gay people etc. because you can't really reform china or russia but you can pass laws in america (maybe have reformism good and case and read framework.) 

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, being a k-aff, there's no warrant as to why the advocacy needs to be immediate.

 

 

1) Everything in the aff is a a linear disad to this.  Every ethical claim, every root cause claim, every reject every instance of X claim

 

2) Are you ready to roll on threat construction/realism K as an answer to hege?

 

Also, I don't know a lot of performative affs that actually defend fiat.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Everything in the aff is a a linear disad to this.  Every ethical claim, every root cause claim, every reject every instance of X claim

 

2) Are you ready to roll on threat construction/realism K as an answer to hege?

 

Also, I don't know a lot of performative affs that actually defend fiat.

 

Just read a quick ballot commidification bad card about why "All of your root-cause/ethics/reject every instance" is just a reason why you should prefer our root-cause/ethics/reject every instance of their shitty stupid hippy aff because #1 they're cheating #2 comdification of the ballot and #3 Delay is better cus we have the nb of not doing the aff for awhile and that's better than doing it since it's bad. 

  • 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...