Jump to content
kylerbuckner

How to: PIK/AIK

Recommended Posts

I am looking into writing some PIK's/AIK's whatever you wish to call them. (like a flat out hey plan can happen post alt world in the 1NC, not a one liner in the 2nc)

 

How would I go about writing a successful/good PIK? I have some evidence for it but how should it be structured, how do I know what to exclude etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to be more specific as to what your argument says before we can help you construct one.

 

I would say the number one thing is that you should articulate as to what you want the PIK to look like and why it is uniquely better than just flat out rejecting the aff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep in mind that I have no experience running PIKs, nor any watching them ever being ran. This is one of the things that my coach hasn't taught me either, so sorry if I sound like an idiot explaining this, that's why. I have evidence that says the biopolitical death drive is fueled by the hatred for the queer other, so it would be something like alt is prereq to the aff. I am running QT vs. a policy aff. that has biopower, racism, and rights advantages. Should I just say K solves case rather than running a PIK?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to be clear on what we're discussing, this will be a PIK in the sense like how policy debate does it, IE a fiated 'CP' with an advocacy text that's the plan minus something (I get that it's a K net benefit in this case).

 

First things first, what's your net benefit/what's the thesis of the PIK?

 

So to set this all up, you need to sit down and think about how this is going to compete with the plan. So the first question is if you know the difference between textual and functional competition?

 

Next, once we've settled the basics, the next step is to go about writing your advocacy statement/PIK text. So piggybacking off of the competition discussion (which you can respond to down below) you need to be careful how this operates because you can't do things like have your pik be 'Plan +' because it won't compete. The way to do this is to have a 'Plan -' PIK, ie pick some part of the plan that's bad and then have your PIK text be exactly the same thing minus that problematic piece. Once you've written the text, then you toss in the evidence below for whatever proves your NB and then that's the 1NC shell.

 

From the block on, there are two key framing issues you need to win

1) Competition - you need to be able to explain why any permutation will fail and why the PIK is net better than the plan or the perm

2) Solvency - if you don't win that you solve the aff then you're screwed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to be clear on what we're discussing, this will be a PIK in the sense like how policy debate does it, IE a fiated 'CP' with an advocacy text that's the plan minus something (I get that it's a K net benefit in this case).

 

First things first, what's your net benefit/what's the thesis of the PIK?

Solving for rc of oppression and violence because the notion of heterosexuality discludes anything it deems abnormal. I have a card that says relieving oppression of the queer other is a prereq to solving biopower. 

 

So to set this all up, you need to sit down and think about how this is going to compete with the plan. So the first question is if you know the difference between textual and functional competition?

Not really

Next, once we've settled the basics, the next step is to go about writing your advocacy statement/PIK text. So piggybacking off of the competition discussion (which you can respond to down below) you need to be careful how this operates because you can't do things like have your pik be 'Plan +' because it won't compete. The way to do this is to have a 'Plan -' PIK, ie pick some part of the plan that's bad and then have your PIK text be exactly the same thing minus that problematic piece. Once you've written the text, then you toss in the evidence below for whatever proves your NB and then that's the 1NC shell. How do I determine what is bad? Like, rhetorically bad or? Since I have that biopower card could I PIK out of that because their methodolgy is wrong and how I solve better?

 

From the block on, there are two key framing issues you need to win

1) Competition - you need to be able to explain why any permutation will fail and why the PIK is net better than the plan or the perm. Would perm severs be a good argument to put on this? Really, the perm seems kind of like what the PIK would be and is virtually useless, except for the aff to steal neg ground. 

2) Solvency - if you don't win that you solve the aff then you're screwed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really, the perm seems kind of like what the PIK would be and is virtually useless, except for the aff to steal neg ground. 

Yeah, so that's a really good way to lose a debate.  That's why Snark said that understanding the idea of competition is key, because what you just said is the definition of being not competitive

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg it's a discussion on theory. Anyways, beware of affs saying that a severance PIK in this one instance is uniquely good cause usually, it is. If the PIK really is non competitive and stuff like that, heck, the aff can even say perm do the K cause there's literally no difference. However, your Queer Hatred card accounts for this is and is also an example of what allows the cap k to be competitive with a cap aff. For example, if someone runs a cap k aff that includes Mao's call for a violent revolution, you can still run the cap k but instead use something like Bifo's radical passivity or (insert the 1001 authors here)'s historical materialism and talk about why their methodology is bad or can't solve. So yeah, that would be your NB right there.

 

In terms of theory though, run by the theory files like TFF and you should be able to get the gist of what Textual Comp/ Functional Comp are just by reading the shells.

Edited by rnakg1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, so that's a really good way to lose a debate.  That's why Snark said that understanding the idea of competition is key, because what you just said is the definition of being not competitive

So confused as to how these quotes are working out.

 

Anyways, that card/argument isn't suited to making a PIK because it would have to be 'plan +'. Doing something else and then doing the plan can't really compete on a functional level because you're not changing what the aff does.

(Technically you could go for competition based on the definition of 'resolved' and immediacy but I would recommend against this. It's sketchy at best even if you're on the up and up on your theory)

 

That argument seems better suited to just making a whole K with an actual alt, and from there you can leverage that arg as a root cause claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So confused as to how these quotes are working out.

 

Anyways, that card/argument isn't suited to making a PIK because it would have to be 'plan +'. Doing something else and then doing the plan can't really compete on a functional level because you're not changing what the aff does.

(Technically you could go for competition based on the definition of 'resolved' and immediacy but I would recommend against this. It's sketchy at best even if you're on the up and up on your theory)

 

That argument seems better suited to just making a whole K with an actual alt, and from there you can leverage that arg as a root cause claim.

Doesn't a "root cause" claim sort of make the K a PIK though? I mean, if you win that X is the root cause of A, then that means that the K is able to resolve the harms of the affirmative, which means you "solve the case," does that not make you the K a PIK? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So confused as to how these quotes are working out.

 

Anyways, that card/argument isn't suited to making a PIK because it would have to be 'plan +'. Doing something else and then doing the plan can't really compete on a functional level because you're not changing what the aff does.

(Technically you could go for competition based on the definition of 'resolved' and immediacy but I would recommend against this. It's sketchy at best even if you're on the up and up on your theory)

 

That argument seems better suited to just making a whole K with an actual alt, and from there you can leverage that arg as a root cause claim.

So like as opposed to making a PIK just say the K solves the harms of the aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't a "root cause" claim sort of make the K a PIK though? I mean, if you win that X is the root cause of A, then that means that the K is able to resolve the harms of the affirmative, which means you "solve the case," does that not make you the K a PIK? 

No; "Alt solves the advantages of the case" is distinct from "the alt is the plan minus X" 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol here is the simplest way to be running PIK's : Win your root cause and alternative solvency : everything else comes in round . Like in case of this Death Drive arguement, this sounds alot Like Edelman ( Correct me if IM wrong ) . If that is the queer other cards you use with the death drive . Dont do it, It'll be more strategtic to win the Other outweighs the Big Stick impact - and if its not Edelman you are using for this - that'll be my recommendation look into Lee Edelman's No Future 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol here is the simplest way to be running PIK's : Win your root cause and alternative solvency : everything else comes in round . 

Root cause is not a Pik. Pik say do all the plan minus X. Root cause is the alternative solves the case. so arg is distinct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dont misunderstand me : Not Just Root Cause alone .... Like the plan minus x -  is a PIK yea buttttttttttttttt to do that i remeber you have to go for two arguements - and isnt it a  root cause and a alt solvency arguement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Root cause is not a Pik. Pik say do all the plan minus X. Root cause is the alternative solves the case. so arg is distinct

*do all the aff minus X -- in the case of a PIK it's usually piking out of something in the affirmative writ large rather than simply the plantext. In that situation it would be a pic (plan inclusive counterplan) with a kritikal net benefit. A PIK, as long as it identifies something that it can remove from the aff, is theoretically competitive under some theories of competition (which are up for debate).

 

A PIK could not be, therefore, do the aff plus a historical materialist analysis (for example) but would be more like do the aff without their representations of extinction from warming (then read apoc reps). In this world the entirety of the plantext would happen (ergo it would not be plan-), but we don't do the aff with the same mindset/epistemology/etc. of the affirmative case. 

 

Under some theories of competition this would be illegitimate. It comes down to what the judge's ballot means: does it purely evaluate the hypothetical implementation of the plantext, or does it also evaluate the implications of the affirmative case as well (whether inside the debate or outside of it). In order to win a PIK you have to win that epistemology/ontology/methodology etc. comes first, or at least is valuable for the discussion. If you lose this, it is very likely that you lose competition, as the PIK is no longer textually or functionally competitive. But if a discussion of the aff's epistemology (or whatever) is warranted/they must be held accountable for it (as per your framework), then their role of the ballot is bad because it forecloses those debates. 

 

Now obviously there are theoretical reasons for the aff to get their plantext, and therefore they will argue for their realm of competition. However as long as you win that they must defend their discourse, and it is fair for them (as they picked their discourse, and should have at least a few epistemology defense cards), then you can win with a PIK. 

 

There is also a distinction between Word PIKs and Word PICS. For example, if you are to PIK out of a word in the affirmative's case, that would not be textually or functionally competitive under the plantext theory of competition. You would then have to read an argument as to why they should be held responsible for their rhetoric (this usually happens when they have said an offensive word or something of that sort). A word PIC would be a PIC out of an inconsequential textual portion of the plantext, for example, the word "the" in "The United States federal government," this would not change the functional meaning of the plantext, and would probably have some really silly justification. It would remain textually competitive however, as it is plan minus in that regard. 

 

And for your purposes it seems like you want a straight up "PIK" rather than one of the floating variety. Oftentimes people (in my experience) have referred to all PIKs as "floating PIKs" which doesn't make any sense and results in some flawed understanding of the arguments. A floating PIK would be an alternative that shifts or "floats" to advocate for the plantext in the Block. These are pretty illegitimate because they change the argument originally forwarded by the negative. Unfortunately, many affirmatives will essentially read the wrong block in response to floating PIKs because they don't understand the true theoretical problem with the floating PIK, it's not the fact that it is a PIK, it's that it is floating. It's essentially a new conditional world in the 2NC which is extremely abusive (Protect the 1AR!) and might actually violate the negative's interpretation of conditionality depending upon how it's phrased. 

 

But ultimately if you want to run a straight up PIK then there are a few considerations you have to fulfill

1. Ensure you are not simply adding an alt to the aff, and are identifying something wrong with the affirmative that makes a (legitimate) permutation of the two impossible. (Plan+ vs plan-)

2. Win that discourse/epistemology/whatever the realm your K lies in comes first or at least on an equal level to policymaking. 

3. Utilize the above two on the theory debate to establish legitimacy for your PIK. Look at the arguments the affirmative is making and point out if they don't apply to your specific PIK. 

 

As long as you do the above three your argument is extremely strategic, as you have nullfied the affirmative's offense without having to go to the case pages defensively (which makes your 2nr much harder), and you have established a risk of offense. As long as the aff doesn't have an impact turn to your kritik, or an advantage to their discourse/ontology/whatever, it's an auto win. If they do have these things, then that's a portion of the debate which is going to be fought more on your side of the field than theirs, which is always what you want. Establish the framework, win the theory, and then the debate will come to you.

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...