Jump to content
goodatthis

How to run a floating PIK?

Recommended Posts

So I understand that a floating PIK is basically a kritik alternative (lets just say a simple rejection of capitalism) that solves 100% (or some other arbitrary percentage) of the plan, and the kriticism impact/link is the net benefit. Yet you don't explicitly say that you advocate for the plan in a non-capitalist world. So my question is, how do you flesh a floating PIK out in the 2NR? Just say that the alt solves the case because we are able to do X (meaning the benefits of the plan) in a non-capitalist world? And how would you pre-empt a perm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2NC at the end of the alt extension you could say something along the lines of "that means that the aff can happen in the world of the alternative, but the alt is a prerequisite to solve (insert thing you kritik). It's really shifty and you might lose a round hedging on it especially since some judges might not be able to flow it because they don't hear that one liner, but if they do (which they might) then you get up in the 2NR and say that they conceded the Floating PIK- solves 100% of the aff while avoiding X, means they don't access any of their offense and the alt is a prerequisite to the happening of the aff as per the k. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2NC at the end of the alt extension you could say something along the lines of "that means that the aff can happen in the world of the alternative, but the alt is a prerequisite to solve (insert thing you kritik). It's really shifty and you might lose a round hedging on it especially since some judges might not be able to flow it because they don't hear that one liner, but if they do (which they might) then you get up in the 2NR and say that they conceded the Floating PIK- solves 100% of the aff while avoiding X, means they don't access any of their offense and the alt is a prerequisite to the happening of the aff as per the k. 

This is correct. The way i've done it in the past is by being really shifty in the block, then yelling they conceded floating pik at the top of the 2NR. Usually, like Capisnotcool says, you should definitely not heg on it, but you should make it clear that there's no way you lose if the judge accepts it as legitimate

 

And to answer your question about the perm -- if they end up making a perm or saying the floating pik proves the perm you should say (in any perm block): any perm that severs representations is cheating (insert reasons like destroys neg ground, justifies infinite conditionality, justifies kicking out of an impact turned heg advantage etc.)-- you have to evaluate the aff vs the alternative not the plan vs the alternative. Therefore the floating PIK is only an option when links are to the aff's advantages/epistemology etc and not the plantext. If there's a link to the plantext or action of the aff that proves the PIK is impossible and links to itself, which makes a 2nr on it at best a perm or at worst a double turn. This means in order to win the PIK you must not extend links to the action of the aff/plantext.

 

The only justification for a floating pik is that epistemology comes first, therefore the plan doesn't matter, and if you win that you don't need the pik anyway. But the pik, if dropped, simply allows you to get rid of that debate without having to really engage in it. If not dropped, your better off just winning epist comes first, which nullifies the same amount of offense as the pik does anyway. The main theoretical problem with the pik (contrary to everyone's usual floating piks bad 2ac block) is not that it nullifies aff offense (that's just a pics bad argument which can be beaten easily) it's the floating part that it isn't actually the alternative that's in the 1NC which justifies shifting literally everything, making debate neigh on impossible. Fortunately, most teams just make a pics bad argument that it nullifies the aff, which you should say is good because epist (edit: or whatever your kritik is of) comes first.

Edited by yee
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct. The way i've done it in the past is by being really shifty in the block, then yelling they conceded floating pik at the top of the 2NR. Usually, like Capisnotcool says, you should definitely not heg on it, but you should make it clear that there's no way you lose if the judge accepts it as legitimate

 

And to answer your question about the perm -- if they end up making a perm or saying the floating pik proves the perm you should say (in any perm block): any perm that severs representations is cheating (insert reasons like destroys neg ground, justifies infinite conditionality, justifies kicking out of an impact turned heg advantage etc.)-- you have to evaluate the aff vs the alternative not the plan vs the alternative. Therefore the floating PIK is only an option when links are to the aff's advantages/epistemology etc and not the plantext. If there's a link to the plantext or action of the aff that proves the PIK is impossible and links to itself, which makes a 2nr on it at best a perm or at worst a double turn. This means in order to win the PIK you must not extend links to the action of the aff/plantext.

 

The only justification for a floating pik is that epistemology comes first, therefore the plan doesn't matter, and if you win that you don't need the pik anyway. But the pik, if dropped, simply allows you to get rid of that debate without having to really engage in it. If not dropped, your better off just winning epist comes first, which nullifies the same amount of offense as the pik does anyway. The main theoretical problem with the pik (contrary to everyone's usual floating piks bad 2ac block) is not that it nullifies aff offense (that's just a pics bad argument which can be beaten easily) it's the floating part that it isn't actually the alternative that's in the 1NC which justifies shifting literally everything, making debate neigh on impossible. Fortunately, most teams just make a pics bad argument that it nullifies the aff, which you should say is good because epist (edit: or whatever your kritik is of) comes first.

Best way to get Sub-28 speaker points -

 

Don't do that; identify why the K comes first and why the Alt solves the Case, it should take you about 30 - 60 seconds 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best way to get Sub-28 speaker points -

 

Don't do that; identify why the K comes first and why the Alt solves the Case, it should take you about 30 - 60 seconds 

I don't mean it literally, but if they have dropped the floating pik you should definitely point it out clearly at the top of the 2NR. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand "floating PIK" is used almost exclusively as a way to call out K teams that give ambiguous explanations of how the plan could operate in the world of the alternative, yes? Strategically it might be useful, but for the good of the community, if you're going to read a PIK, clearly outline that you are doing so. Also gives you more legitimacy on the F/W or theory level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best way to get Sub-28 speaker points -

 

Don't do that; identify why the K comes first and why the Alt solves the Case, it should take you about 30 - 60 seconds 

 

I don't mean it literally, but if they have dropped the floating pik you should definitely point it out clearly at the top of the 2NR. 

 

It's somewhere between both of you, which is best demonstrated with an example.

 

1AC-Weed, relevant impact is food security

Neg is neolib K, I made the argument that neolib is the root cause of food insecurity because it messes up food distribution even with enough production.

 

Now, in the 2NR I can get up there and rant about epistemology first and that the alt solves the case until I'm blue in the face, but it's still not a floating pik. Just arguing that the K I/L turns their scenarios is NOT a floating pick, a floating pik is where you endorse the aff advocacy minus something (reps/epistem/etc). You also can't just say that the alt and the plan aren't mutually exclusive either (but that's part of it), because again, saying that doesn't actually mean the plan happens. You have to endorse both to actually call it a floating pik, which changes the block set up. You need to say why, if they had done the aff differently, it would have worked better.

Edit: another thing, if you don't flag it as a floating pik, judges won't flow it as one. Gotta keep in mind many will default to thinking it's a root cause arg.

 

Here's a 1NR that sets up the floating PIK, this is most obvious at 1:14:00

 

https://youtu.be/iYOMmL4hzuQ?t=1h10m18s

 

And the 2NR with the floating PIK

https://youtu.be/iYOMmL4hzuQ?t=1h36m31s

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand "floating PIK" is used almost exclusively as a way to call out K teams that give ambiguous explanations of how the plan could operate in the world of the alternative, yes? Strategically it might be useful, but for the good of the community, if you're going to read a PIK, clearly outline that you are doing so. Also gives you more legitimacy on the F/W or theory level.

I mean there's a difference between a floating PIK and a straight up PIK. A floating PIK is a cheap trick, a straight up PIK is laid out in the 1NC and is generally more accepted.

 

EDIT: and no, calling out K teams not the only use of a floating PIK, many teams utilize a floating PIK trick very often, and it is something that affs have to be aware of in the block/1AR.

Edited by yee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's somewhere between both of you, which is best demonstrated with an example.

 

1AC-Weed, relevant impact is food security

Neg is neolib K, I made the argument that neolib is the root cause of food insecurity because it messes up food distribution even with enough production.

 

Now, in the 2NR I can get up there and rant about epistemology first and that the alt solves the case until I'm blue in the face, but it's still not a floating pik. Just arguing that the K I/L turns their scenarios is NOT a floating pick, a floating pik is where you endorse the aff advocacy minus something (reps/epistem/etc). You also can't just say that the alt and the plan aren't mutually exclusive either (but that's part of it), because again, saying that doesn't actually mean the plan happens. You have to endorse both to actually call it a floating pik, which changes the block set up. You need to say why, if they had done the aff differently, it would have worked better.

Edit: another thing, if you don't flag it as a floating pik, judges won't flow it as one. Gotta keep in mind many will default to thinking it's a root cause arg.

 

Here's a 1NR that sets up the floating PIK, this is most obvious at 1:14:00

 

https://youtu.be/iYOMmL4hzuQ?t=1h10m18s

 

And the 2NR with the floating PIK

https://youtu.be/iYOMmL4hzuQ?t=1h36m31s

Ayyyyyy Snark is that you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to run a floating PIK? Don't.

 

Either make it an explicit PIK from the get go so it can actually be debated, or don't PIK.

 

Definitely don't be evasive about what the alt entails and then floating PIK.  The aff breathes a word about shifting goalposts and fairness in the 2AR and you deserve to lose that round.

 

And definitely don't link of omission / they didn't change society link them to the K and then PIK.  A lot of plans are reasonably agnostic about economic system (for the Cap K or Neolib), and the floating PIK being the perm becomes pretty easy to swallow as a judge.

 

The best PIKs are ones where the alt is willing to be specific, and that specificity makes it obvious that it excludes the plan as articulated by the affirmative.  The PIK comes from pointing out how changing some things about the plan or its implementation makes it doable with the alt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayyyyyy Snark is that you? 

Nope, I'm a blonde. Also, not a fan of debility/ableism arguments, just never read the lit base and I have too many other projects now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX: Is this an AIK?

 

Me: Why yes it is

 

Wins anyways

 

Defend your shit, people

*hires guards for toilet*

 

Anyways, I never understood why we don't ask if the K can turn into a floating PIK. Instead of that "can it result in..." what's the problem with coming out and saying it?

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The floating PIK should be an explanation as to how the alt solves case (or could result in the aff) but why the alt is a prerequisite to resolve something that you are criticizing, such as epistemology. 

 

Also I agree w/ ARGogate b/c you should defend what you pull, and it's not terribly difficult to defend a floating PIK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, I never understood why we don't ask if the K can turn into a floating PIK. Instead of that "can it result in..." what's the problem with coming out and saying it?

The problem is that the neg might say "of course not" run a floating PIK but won't call it that. It's probably better to ensure they can't get away with anything sketchy, because if they're gonna run a floating PIK they're gonna do something sketchy anyway.

 

Octofinals of KCKCC last year the other team asked us if "aff possible in world of the alt" we said "maybe" and it made them very angry. I'm not saying you should do what I did, but still, watch out for people who pull cheap tricks like junior year me and ensure that they don't do anything wrong.

 

This year we have read a floating piks bad 2AC block against every k just in case (it's just a one line argument, and isn't hard to make), if they make one we can expand upon it and it forces them to answer it, making it obvious that they are making one if they have to read their PIKs good block in the 2NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the neg might say "of course not" run a floating PIK but won't call it that. It's probably better to ensure they can't get away with anything sketchy, because if they're gonna run a floating PIK they're gonna do something sketchy anyway.

 

Octofinals of KCKCC last year the other team asked us if "aff possible in world of the alt" we said "maybe" and it made them very angry. I'm not saying you should do what I did, but still, watch out for people who pull cheap tricks like junior year me and ensure that they don't do anything wrong.

 

This year we have read a floating piks bad 2AC block against every k just in case (it's just a one line argument, and isn't hard to make), if they make one we can expand upon it and it forces them to answer it, making it obvious that they are making one if they have to read their PIKs good block in the 2NC.

I don't think any competent judge would buy the 'we called it something different' justification. If it was different enough to not link to the exact same theory violations it wouldn't be a floating pik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any competent judge would buy the 'we called it something different' justification. If it was different enough to not link to the exact same theory violations it wouldn't be a floating pik.

Oh I agree 100%, my only thing is read theory against floating PIKs even if they don't call it that in 1NC cx, as it takes like 2 seconds. Because if they dodge the question "can it be a floating pik" with something like "welllll" etc, then read the violation anyway, because it doesn't take much time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is just in my circuit, but the term "floating PIK" is often used as a meaningless pejorative. IE: "They say that the alt is a prerequisite to the aff; therefore, floating PIK bad we win." There is obviously a working definition for the term, but people like to throw it around to garner links to theory that simply aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At SME this year we ran a kritik of alarmist rhetoric where the alt text literally states that the plan can still happen just without the alarmist rhetoric. It was hella abusive but the other team didnt call us out on it and the judge voted on it. I find PIKs especially useful if you have a more policy oriented judge but still want to run a kritik, the impact scenario on the kritik is iffy but you still want to have some reason to vote on the k, and I am personally a fan of them on discourse kiriks. Run them, hope you don't get caught, write good floating piks god blocks and have fun abusing people. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At SME this year we ran a kritik of alarmist rhetoric where the alt text literally states that the plan can still happen just without the alarmist rhetoric. It was hella abusive but the other team didnt call us out on it and the judge voted on it. I find PIKs especially useful if you have a more policy oriented judge but still want to run a kritik, the impact scenario on the kritik is iffy but you still want to have some reason to vote on the k, and I am personally a fan of them on discourse kiriks. Run them, hope you don't get caught, write good floating piks god blocks and have fun abusing people. 

To add to this, it helps, obviously, with the theory debate if you state it's a PIK coming out of the 1NC. This is a lot easier with rhetoric PIKs than it is with discourse PIKs as those are usually tied more closely with the 1AC. Discourse PIKs usually have a lot more nuance.

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...