Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm running a cap K, and I have some cards that say that the left uses dialogue as a way to prop up the upper class hegemony.  I also have a CX Check and an "RVI good." I know these are spikes, but where do I put them? Are they underviews, or should I have them randomly at the bottom of the case?

 

EDIT: I'm in LD :P

EDIT2: K aff. Whoops

Edited by 8off
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running a cap K, and I have some cards that say that the left uses dialogue as a way to prop up the upper class hegemony.  I also have a CX Check and an "RVI good." I know these are spikes, but where do I put them? Are they underviews, or should I have them randomly at the bottom of the case?

"RVI Good" does not belong anywhere in your speech. Honestly same goes for CX Checks unless there's a good specific reason why.

 

An actual answer is that these things belong on the line by line

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running a cap K, and I have some cards that say that the left uses dialogue as a way to prop up the upper class hegemony.  I also have a CX Check and an "RVI good." I know these are spikes, but where do I put them? Are they underviews, or should I have them randomly at the bottom of the case?

 

EDIT: I'm in LD :P

Was that a typo or am I just dumb..

 

Isn't the right what a cap K critiques? 

 

If not, where else can a cap K critique from if not the left? (the middle/center??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about those specific examples, but generally you want to put the K tricks on the line-by-line, NOT in the overview or (god help you) underview.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that a typo or am I just dumb..

 

Isn't the right what a cap K critiques? 

 

If not, where else can a cap K critique from if not the left? (the middle/center??)

No there are links to left wing movements.  The link story is just predicated on the idea that they just detract from a focus on actual change via communist revolution/historical materialism

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all the fact that s/he is in LD I think explains all these weird reprehensible blippy theory arguments.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about those specific examples, but generally you want to put the K tricks on the line-by-line, NOT in the overview or (god help you) underview.

 

An actual answer is that these things belong on the line by line

So there's no way I can spike these in my AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's no way I can spike these in my AC?

Can someone translate from LD?

Edited by Miro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were just reading 1off i'd put these at the very top of the 1NC. However, sometimes when I read a K I read intrinsic and severance perms are voting issues below the alt and above the framework, so if I were to wish to read more spikes in the 1NC I guess it'd just make sense to put them there. Putting them on the line by line in LD if the aff doesn't say the exact opposite of what your spike is is just going to make things super messy in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were just reading 1off i'd put these at the very top of the 1NC. However, sometimes when I read a K I read intrinsic and severance perms are voting issues below the alt and above the framework, so if I were to wish to read more spikes in the 1NC I guess it'd just make sense to put them there. Putting them on the line by line in LD if the aff doesn't say the exact opposite of what your spike is is just going to make things super messy in my experience.

What if this is a K aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if this is a K aff?

 

Take this with a grain of salt, since it's been more than 15 years since I debated LD, but I'd have a theory contention after case proper, and put these things there.  That it's called "Theory" will make it obvious what these are, and make it easy to find and reference them later.

 

(Organizationally, putting theory up top would usually be better, but since these don't really deal with case proper, that would be more confusing than beneficial when presenting it orally rather than in writing, and even in writing I could see handling this stuff as an appendix rather than an up-front set of issues).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty much impossible not to link to a critique:

 

1) there are ks that link to various elements of the topic--agent, mechanism, or implicit values etc..

2) there are ks that link to representations

3) there are ks that link to the notion of value

 

K spikes pretty much amount to silly semantics.  There is no universal K spike.

 

Read impact turns.  Get smart on turning the alternative.

 

K spikes 97 to 99% of the time are a strategic dead end. 

 

Think.  Do research.  Get a real strategy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is quite literally incoherent and i dont understand what it means 

Welcome to LD

 

Can someone translate from LD?

AC=1AC

NC=1NC

NR=2NR

Edited by yee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread is astonishingly unhelpful. It's a coherent, simple question about LD, not a thread for you all to vent your frustrations and willfully misunderstand the diversity of debate styles.

 

I'm running a cap K, and I have some cards that say that the left uses dialogue as a way to prop up the upper class hegemony.  I also have a CX Check and an "RVI good." I know these are spikes, but where do I put them? Are they underviews, or should I have them randomly at the bottom of the case?

 

EDIT: I'm in LD :P

EDIT2: K aff. Whoops

 

You can keep the spikes! But Squirreloid is exactly right, you should put them in the underview after the contention-level offense. Your AC's 'outline,' so to speak, should be framework/ROTB work, contention-level offense, and then a theory underview. That's how most progressive LD cases are organized, and it works well.

 

CX checks isn't necessary (Theparanoiacmachine is right, it's really only helpful if you expect your opponent to spring ASPEC on you; that's a strategic decision to make before the round, if you know your opponent will probably do that). I'd keep RVIs Good; you should also put in Aff Presumption, that's a helpful tiebreaker in theory debates (if you debate where those are common).

 

I assume that the cards you're talking about ("the left uses dialogue as a way to prop up the upper class hegemony") are just answers to discourse kritiks, right? You can save that for the 1AR. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that; are they answers to a cap Ks of your aff, or something else?

 

"RVI Good" does not belong anywhere in your speech. Honestly same goes for CX Checks unless there's a good specific reason why.

 

An actual answer is that these things belong on the line by line

 

The 1AR doesn't have time to make these arguments as new ones, but it does have time to extend 1AC underview work. It also forces the NC to engage the line-by-line of what the 1AC had, allowing the theory debate to develop and become judgeable (otherwise I'm stuck with an all-new NR v. 2AR debate, two speeches on a theory debate, instead of four. Big difference).

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can keep the spikes! But Squirreloid is exactly right, you should put them in the underview after the contention-level offense. Your AC's 'outline,' so to speak, should be framework/ROTB work, contention-level offense, and then a theory underview. That's how most progressive LD cases are organized, and it works well.

 

The sad part?  The last time I saw or did an LD round, reading cards was highly progressive.  I don't think I ever saw a plan, any real philosophy besides Rand, Rawls, or Nozick from the 20th century, nor even a single theory debate worthy of the name.  And I did LD for 3 years, including national tournaments.  (Pithy quotes from the 20th century were common, but generally used in defense of a classic philosopher's position - lots of Kant, Locke, Bentham, Mills, and Marx).

 

Ah the 90s, when LD was actually recognizable as what the (then) NSF imagined when they created the activity.  (No comment on how it is now - I haven't even seen a round since then since UDLs only do policy).

 

But structure is something which doesn't require convention to get right, just logic.  Convention should tend to converge on what's effective for communication, or at least something that isn't easy to improve on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1AR doesn't have time to make these arguments as new ones, but it does have time to extend 1AC underview work. It also forces the NC to engage the line-by-line of what the 1AC had, allowing the theory debate to develop and become judgeable (otherwise I'm stuck with an all-new NR v. 2AR debate, two speeches on a theory debate, instead of four. Big difference).

Yeah, I posted before I knew that OP was talking about LD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I think that the above posters and I were rightfully confused when this was posted (in the wrong forum) without any indication that this was for LD debate.

 

Wow, this thread is astonishingly unhelpful. It's a coherent, simple question about LD, not a thread for you all to vent your frustrations and willfully misunderstand the diversity of debate styles.

Much of the earlier posts might have been unhelpful because we didn't know that s/he was in LD-- you downvoted my post saying to keep the K spikes out of the underview because in *policy*, that is the best idea and nothing in the OP suggested that this wasn't a policy question.

 

 

People were criticizing the weird theory arguments and I was simply trying to explain why those were included in the OP. 

 

It's not "astonishing" that responses to a post in cross-x in the wrong forum without any indication that they're written for LD would have "unhelpful" responses because they're geared towards people reading a K on the Neg.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Yeah, I posted before I knew that OP was talking about LD

I'm sorry but I think that the above posters and I were rightfully confused when this was posted (in the wrong forum) without any indication that this was for LD debate.

 

Much of the earlier posts might have been unhelpful because we didn't know that s/he was in LD-- you downvoted my post saying to keep the K spikes out of the underview because in *policy*, that is the best idea and nothing in the OP suggested that this wasn't a policy question.

 

 

People were criticizing the weird theory arguments and I was simply trying to explain why those were included in the OP. 

 

It's not "astonishing" that responses to a post in cross-x in the wrong forum without any indication that they're written for LD would have "unhelpful" responses because they're geared towards people reading a K on the Neg.

 

Fair enough, didn't realize it was edited in. Looking back i see how that's an easy mistake to make.

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...