Jump to content
Khanguy101

K tricks?

Recommended Posts

There is no other way than knowing both sides of the literature.  How?

1) Camp

2) Caselists (2ac in this case)

3) Reading the articles

 

Allowing yourself the time to write frontlines to arguments you know you will and/or could hear and writing out responses.

 

Spending time writing out 2NC/1NR responses is 10x more effective and useful than speed drills.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds a lot like policy framework. 

 

Sounds like someone put the work back into framework. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Root cause
PIK

Alt solves the case
Alt solves the link
Alt is a metaphor, not literal
Fiat isn't real
Epistemology first, ontology first, or method first
Your impacts are constructed/debate is a game of lies
Role of the ballot is X
Not util
Engaging the state is evil/ineffective

I can't be bothered to describe these in detail, but they're a few ideas that pop up frequently.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault would kritik the notion of root causes lol. You're not gonna find a root cause of biopower because the phrase is conceptually incoherent

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Root cause

PIK

Alt solves the case

Alt solves the link

Alt is a metaphor, not literal

Fiat isn't real

Epistemology first, ontology first, or method first

Your impacts are constructed/debate is a game of lies

Role of the ballot is X

Not util

Engaging the state is evil/ineffective

 

I can't be bothered to describe these in detail, but they're a few ideas that pop up frequently.

I recognize these what these arguments are saying, my question is what makes them K tricks, and how exactly are they run? Essentially, how is the argument used in round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault would kritik the notion of root causes lol. You're not gonna find a root cause of biopower because the phrase is conceptually incoherent

As if the way biopower is discussed in debate rounds has anything to do with Foucault's conception of biopower. Every K I've seen that uses biopower as an impact or whatever is Agamben or the like based. Your analysis is spot on here 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault would kritik the notion of root causes lol. You're not gonna find a root cause of biopower because the phrase is conceptually incoherent

When people say biopower root cause, hurts me as much as when debaters say striated space root cause of fascism 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognize these what these arguments are saying, my question is what makes them K tricks, and how exactly are they run? Essentially, how is the argument used in round?

Pick some specific ones, and we can explain them. Better yet, pick a specific kritik that you want to see the "trick" executed in the context of, and we'll explain it. You can't just assume that the same "trick" can be used with every single K. Each K has a different thesis and different take on issues.

 

I'll just start with root cause in the context of cap (specifically a Marxist-style cap K). Here would a brief, in-round explanation:

 

We've proven that the aff is capitalist. That's our [insert author] card that says ocean development is inherently tied to resource extraction for capitalistic growth. Next, extend our [insert author] card on how capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction. Capitalism is inherently a system of economic growth, and that requires more and more natural resources. This constant need for minerals, fuel, and other things causes us to create open pit mines and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Thus, even if the aff is able to stop one proximate cause of environmental destruction (whatever their story is), they still propagate the capitalistic system of endless growth and planetary destruction. In the long-run, their impact becomes non-unique/inevitable, and the alt is the only way to solve for this. It's try or die for the neg.

 

Root cause arguments should pretty much always be contextualized to the particular aff advantages. Root cause arguments basically make it so that the aff's impacts are not only non-unique but also are caused (in some small part) by the aff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decent list.

 

K turns the case is more effective than root cause, I would think.  They're kind of functionally the same thing.

Except root cause is much more powerful in the sense that it not only acts as a turn it also acts as terminal solvency takeouts in the long term. 

If the K means they still oppress people or still cause destruction, that's bad, but if you control the root cause of an issue you solve at an earlier level without any solvency deficits and also solve in the long term, rather than the short term. 

Basically, controlling root cause is a turn, but gives you access to mooting the impacts of the Aff in the long term.

Edited by EndlessFacepalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question ^^^^^

 

Two reasons:

1) I don't even know what a card like that would sound like given that writers don't write for debate cards. 

 

2) I'm not sure its fully strategic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is alt solves link a trick?

 

I suppose maybe that should read "alt solves the residual link". This isn't the greatest example, but hopefully it gets the idea across. Suppose the negative reads a capitalism critique with an alternative about using music to tear down power structures. One of the affirmative's responses might be that music itself is commodified by capitalism. The negative, however, might choose to respond by saying that even though music has negative aspects currently, by endorsing the alternative music will gradually become less and less entwined with market structures. So, the negative admits that the alternative is somewhat problematic, but argues that the alternative still has sufficient good aspects to overwhelm the bad, so it still solves.

 

It's a trick because it's an obnoxiously irritating argument to have to answer. It's like winning the alternative debate once and then having to win it again immediately afterwards using a different set of arguments. Like fighting zombie arguments, you've got to double tap. And although I think the example above is a valid instance of its use, more often the argument pops up in contexts where it doesn't make sense if you really think about it - like in cases where the alternative ought to also solve whatever residual links are caused by the permutation. tl;dr k tricks hax cheaters evil satan scum

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos,

 

Doesn't alt. solves the link an extension of the permutation?

 

I haven't seen this in practice....so I'm speculating, but that doesn't seem to get the neg as much as it gets the aff (assuming there is a perm read)

 

In fact if this card was read in the block...I think it justifies a perm in the 1ar because it seems to make sense.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos,

 

Doesn't alt. solves the link an extension of the permutation?

 

I haven't seen this in practice....so I'm speculating, but that doesn't seem to get the neg as much as it gets the aff (assuming there is a perm read)

 

In fact if this card was read in the block...I think it justifies a perm in the 1ar because it seems to make sense.

Doesn't the alternative always have to solve the link though? I mean, if that were not the case then every team would be losing the alternative debate in every instance and Perm: Double Bind would win every round. 

 

I see what you're getting at though, for instance:

 

1AC - OSW

 

1NC - Cap, links is commodification of resources 

 

2AC - Perm

 

2NC/1NR - "Alt solves the link..."

 

1AR - "Perm incorporates the alt, means we solve the link..." 

 

But that looks hella abusive and could quantify, or rather make me err negative on the question of Severance perms 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooooo. I am a ghooooooost... More of an apparition, really. A phantom if you will...

 

I remember reading a post from years ago on the issue of how a K alt should always solve the links. I'm paraphrasing, but maybe someone knows what post I'm talking about.

 

Imagine the K has a link to the aff that says the plan spills over a glass, and the impact is that there's spilled milk on the floor. If the alt were to get paper towels to clean up the spilled milk, that would be a case of the alt solving the impact, not the link (because there are still other instances of people knocking over glasses). Because the alt only solves the impact, the alt can always be permuted; do the plan and get paper towels to clean up the spilled milk/the bad impact of the plan.

 

A K alt should resolve the links of the criticism, not the impact. That makes it harder/impossible for the aff to perm because the alt stops the causes of the impacts (and the aff is one cause), not the impacts themselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick some specific ones, and we can explain them. Better yet, pick a specific kritik that you want to see the "trick" executed in the context of, and we'll explain it. You can't just assume that the same "trick" can be used with every single K. Each K has a different thesis and different take on issues.

 

I'll just start with root cause in the context of cap (specifically a Marxist-style cap K). Here would a brief, in-round explanation:

 

We've proven that the aff is capitalist. That's our [insert author] card that says ocean development is inherently tied to resource extraction for capitalistic growth. Next, extend our [insert author] card on how capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction. Capitalism is inherently a system of economic growth, and that requires more and more natural resources. This constant need for minerals, fuel, and other things causes us to create open pit mines and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Thus, even if the aff is able to stop one proximate cause of environmental destruction (whatever their story is), they still propagate the capitalistic system of endless growth and planetary destruction. In the long-run, their impact becomes non-unique/inevitable, and the alt is the only way to solve for this. It's try or die for the neg.

 

Root cause arguments should pretty much always be contextualized to the particular aff advantages. Root cause arguments basically make it so that the aff's impacts are not only non-unique but also are caused (in some small part) by the aff.

 

While I agree, that looks like an argument people make, there's a critical internal link missing here, and it actually fails as a root cause argument.

 

Capitalism isn't inherently a system of economic growth.  That's a likely consequence of what capitalism does, not an inherent component.  (Capitalism is inherently a market system or inherently a system involving private ownership of property, or possibly both, depending on how the author is defining it).  Getting economic growth out of that requires some analysis on what being a market system entails (and if the author is starting from Capitalism = private property, deriving market systems from that first).  Getting rampant resource consumption out of economic growth requires further analysis and isn't actually a necessary component at all. 

 

The education about capitalism fostered by the way policy debate trains debaters to run Cap Ks is so bad, many debaters running them can rarely give a definition of what Capitalism is.  And this kind of argument is pretty emblematic of that.

 

Further, calling Capitalism a root cause of anything is kind of funny, since Capitalism is a contingent consequence of other factors, most notably scarcity.  Scarcity is a root cause of Capitalism.  And unless someone's running Nano-Machines, no one in the round has any risk of solving scarcity (which isn't saying NMT solves for sure, but it at least has a risk of doing so).  But regardless, if something is a root cause, it can't itself have causes.  That's what the 'root' in "root cause" means.  Arguments about root causes tend to be obfuscatory at best and non-sensical at worst.  They're trying to illegitimately shift an impact-mitigation argument to a link argument. A real alternative to capitalism would be a different approach to scarcity, which makes the whole debate an impact-mitigation debate about who handles scarcity the best.

 

(FWIW, scarcity is only a root cause in an actionable sense.  Much resource scarcity, for example, is contingent on the physics involved in star fusion reactions and death to supernova, but since the resources we have are from supernovae long ago, this isn't actionable - all we have to deal with is the resources available.  Similarly, oil/coal/gas availability is contingent on life and the specific taphonomic processes which entombed it hundred of millions of years ago, which isn't actionable - we can only deal with the resources that exist now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Honestly the best k tricks come with Afropess (or the one's ive won on ) 

 White flight =perm - perm still allows the ivory tower philosophy there  

Social Death - means fuck try or die - im dead already

Whiteness means your knowledge production of the 1AC is flawed and policy failure already occured ,where moving away from politics means we might as well just try 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squirreloid, I'll agree with you that it's just an in-round explanation and not necessarily an objective analysis of what capitalism actually entails. We've had these discussions before, and while I do find them to be valuable, I do not think that delving into depth on these issues is the best course of action given the nature of this thread.

 

Suffice it to say that I agree that a cap K and its components are debatable.

 

 

 Honestly the best k tricks come with Afropess (or the one's ive won on ) 

 White flight =perm - perm still allows the ivory tower philosophy there  

Social Death - means fuck try or die - im dead already

Whiteness means your knowledge production of the 1AC is flawed and policy failure already occured ,where moving away from politics means we might as well just try 

 

Those are all "tricks" that are commonly used by a number of different Ks.

 

The perm answers you outline are related to cooption arguments, which say that if you combine the strategy of the K's alt with the plan, the existing relations of power will remain intact.

Social death is an argument against consequentialism. Even though it uses the language of "death", it doesn't refer to biological death (unless you're actually going to say that you're a zombie or something). It says that solving the issue of social death is more important than solving the issue of biological death.

The last argument is part of a broader concept of serial policy failure. It indicts the aff's epistemology/methodology and argues that the plan will fail as a result.

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...