Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just a quick question I am writing a critical aff andI was just wondering if I need a specific advocacy statement or is it enough to just say that we affirm the resolution?

 

Any advice will be helpful as this is the first k aff I am writing and am really excited to try it out next fall!

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being specific is always best.  Having a concise advocacy statement is usually a good idea.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being specific is always best.  Having a concise advocacy statement is usually a good idea.

yeah but do I have to specifically say how I am curtailing surveillance or can I just say We affirm the resolution to curtail surveillance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but do I have to specifically say how I am curtailing surveillance or can I just say We affirm the resolution to curtail surveillance

dont do the second thing

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you say how you would curtail surveillance for a critical aff?

My personal advice is to actually have a plan *gasp*. If you really have your heart set on not defending the USFG, my advice is to say what exactly you are doing.  I don't know what you're aff is, so I can't give specific advice.  However, it should be some mechanism by which you achieve the change that you want to effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal advice is to actually have a plan *gasp*. If you really have your heart set on not defending the USFG, my advice is to say what exactly you are doing.  I don't know what you're aff is, so I can't give specific advice.  However, it should be some mechanism by which you achieve the change that you want to effect.

Well technically all topical affs aren't defending the USFG and the k says that all surveillance is bad so I am not sure about how being specific about how I want to curtail surveillance would be beneficial and not just a solvency deficit from not taking away all surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but do I have to specifically say how I am curtailing surveillance or can I just say We affirm the resolution to curtail surveillance

You need a specific mechanism, be it a plan or an advocacy, it is highly recommended. If you don't want one, Jared ran something like that in a vDebate vs. Marty

 

You can check out a couple of the vDebates with K affs (the first one has an advocacy and the second a plan) here and here

 

In all honestly, it comes down to the specific argument and the particular philsophers belief on state action and if it is justifiable, like a Wilderson/Anti-blackness aff probably should not use the state, whereas maybe a Deleuze aff (second link) in which Snark had a specific policy action is probably okay. 

 

For example, I wrote a security aff that eradicates the domestic surveillance sector as an act of embracing insecurity. (ovi not T, but it's the first version until I figure out where I want to take it) The advocacy looked something like this "Thus _____ and I affirm the resolution: We embrace a literal collapse of the USFG's domestic surveillance sector." 

 

Shedding some more light on the mechanics of the 1AC as well as what the K of the aff is, will generate better, more specific responses as to what your advocacy can/should be.

 

Take what I say with a grain of salt though, because I am fairly new to the critical aspect of debate and there are way more qualified people to talk on the subject than me. 

 

EDIT: Just saw the post above, is the K Aff you are writing predicated off of Biopower/Panopticism?

Edited by kylerbuckner
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, I wrote a security aff that eradicates the domestic surveillance sector as an act of embracing insecurity. (ovi not T, but it's the first version until I figure out where I want to take it) The advocacy looked something like this "Thus _____ and I affirm the resolution: We embrace a literal collapse of the USFG's domestic surveillance sector." 

Why isn't this T....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren't going to defend a plan you better be anti-topical or you're going to straight up lose to framework every round. If you can affirm the resolution, then you can defend the resolution.

 

Edit: Don't be anti-topical. SSD suckers, learn it, love it.

 

 

Don't defend sweeping statements like 'ALL' surveillance is bad. That's begging for the neg to find one tiny thing of surveillance good, then impact turn and PIK their way to an easy victory.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't this T....

Some people seem to think that curtail does not mean to eliminate, only decrease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people seem to think that curtail does not mean to eliminate, only decrease

Eliminating is just decreasing completely.  Curtail for sure means decrease but that a decrease to 0 is still a decrease. Anything else is like saying "OSW isn't T because it increases too much."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well technically all topical affs aren't defending the USFG and the k says that all surveillance is bad so I am not sure about how being specific about how I want to curtail surveillance would be beneficial and not just a solvency deficit from not taking away all surveillance.

Welcome to the world of not being shady, where you actually have to talk about solvency.

 

For real though, you don't have to win that your aff totally and completely solve [securitization], just that the aff is part of a process of doing so, or a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eliminating is just decreasing completely.  Curtail for sure means decrease but that a decrease to 0 is still a decrease. Anything else is like saying "OSW isn't T because it increases too much."

I am of the same opinion; others just disagree

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the same opinion; others just disagree

Well, I actually argue that it is but I thought most people disagreed (as my coach does)

 

Curtail means to eliminate or cut short

VD No Date – Vocabulary dictionary http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/curtail

To curtail something is to slow it down, put restrictions on it, or stop it entirely. If I give up cake, I am curtailing my cake-eating. Curtail is an official-sounding word for stopping or slowing things down. The police try to curtail crime — they want there to be less crime in the world. A company may want to curtail their employees' computer time, so they spend more time working and less time goofing around. Teachers try to curtail whispering and note-passing in class. When something is curtailed, it's either stopped entirely or stopped quite a bit — it's cut short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you say 'I affirm the res'

opens you up to all the PICs

while you can sstill just i meet FW in the 2ac with your sketchy anti educational K voodoo 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirming the resolution as a resolutional fiat type thing seems kinda silly to me because someone can read fifty case turns where surveillance is good and probably win. You need a specific advocacy statement! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh , since you used my aff as an example as a no spefic advocacy statement - you do this only when the literature is quite small or  quite hard to get/ can not get at the moment of the time of research.

 If you have any questions send me a pm :  there is always a way to do something and pull it off well

 BUT recommend do find speficity - if you are not full out perfomance  - the better your mechanism the easier things like Debating Framework is ...

 EDIT : OP - what type of Aff you thinking bout researching bout - something like Heidegger,Postmodernism? or something in the realm of your social location or Identity politics  - your need/intrest could change the converation completely 

Edited by JaredCroitoru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off: you need solvency.  8 minutes of harms is not a reason to vote aff.  (I hear 8 minutes of harms and I vote neg on presumption after the 1AC).

 

What is solvency?  It is how the actions you advocate taking solve the harms.  Canonically, those actions you advocate are a Plan, but any advocacy of doing something can have solvency.

 

Thus, you need to advocate doing something.  Make that your advocacy statement/plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off: you need solvency.  8 minutes of harms is not a reason to vote aff.  (I hear 8 minutes of harms and I vote neg on presumption after the 1AC).

 

What is solvency?  It is how the actions you advocate taking solve the harms.  Canonically, those actions you advocate are a Plan, but any advocacy of doing something can have solvency.

 

Thus, you need to advocate doing something.  Make that your advocacy statement/plan.

 

Sounds pretty fascist to me 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 NO NOT AT ALLL.  like you can advocate something and nothing at the same time . This might sound complicated at first , but those aff were you just affirm the rez , so mabye a heideggerian exploration of the idea  of doing that the act of the debate generate solvency .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off: you need solvency.  8 minutes of harms is not a reason to vote aff.  (I hear 8 minutes of harms and I vote neg on presumption after the 1AC).

 

What is solvency?  It is how the actions you advocate taking solve the harms.  Canonically, those actions you advocate are a Plan, but any advocacy of doing something can have solvency.

 

Thus, you need to advocate doing something.  Make that your advocacy statement/plan.

 Since you judge on my circut - i have a question like lets say in the case of the example i gave with heidegger with  the act of dicussion be an exploration and solving a mindset would you vote neg ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Since you judge on my circut - i have a question like lets say in the case of the example i gave with heidegger with  the act of dicussion be an exploration and solving a mindset would you vote neg ?

 

If you have evidence that says that debating solves or your heideggerian exploration solves or whatever, then that is a plan of action with solvency and you get past presumption, at least. 

 

(I don't find that position particularly compelling for a debate round, since it's tantamount to claiming you win just by walking in the room and giving your 1AC, but it is a claim to solvency via a particular action, and it's the negatives job to go after it and explain why it's bad for debate.  I may be sympathetic to some negative arguments, but I'm not going to intervene.)

 

And there's no reason you couldn't have an advocacy statement, since you implicitly have an advocacy in that case.  Implicit advocacies are arguably abusive (because there's no explicit formulation the negative can hold you to, opening the possibility of shifting goalposts), and it takes like 15s to read an advocacy statement, so there's no reason not to.

 

 

Sounds pretty fascist to me 

 

 

Imagine this round:

 

1AC: 8 min of harms.

 

1NC: Concedes the 1AC.  There's nothing to debate here.  But SQ is the only option in the round, and the SQ is neg ground.

 

That's pretty dumb, right?  That's exactly where 8 min of harms gets you, because the affirmative hasn't defended doing anything.  Neg can't read a CP - there's no advocacy to compete with, so the aff can always perm.  Neg can't read a DA, there's nothing to  link to.  Neg can't read most Ks - nothing to link to except the harms rhetoric, and the aff can probably perm the alt; at best round ends in a terrible theory debate over the perm.

 

Basically, there's no substance to the aff that the neg can clash over.  (I mean, yeah, some harms can be impact turned, but it's not hard to find positions where the impact turns are offensive, like 8 minutes of racism harms).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have evidence that says that debating solves or your heideggerian exploration solves or whatever, then that is a plan of action with solvency and you get past presumption, at least. 

 

(I don't find that position particularly compelling for a debate round, since it's tantamount to claiming you win just by walking in the room and giving your 1AC, but it is a claim to solvency via a particular action, and it's the negatives job to go after it and explain why it's bad for debate.  I may be sympathetic to some negative arguments, but I'm not going to intervene.)

 

And there's no reason you couldn't have an advocacy statement, since you implicitly have an advocacy in that case.  Implicit advocacies are arguably abusive (because there's no explicit formulation the negative can hold you to, opening the possibility of shifting goalposts), and it takes like 15s to read an advocacy statement, so there's no reason not to.

 

 
 

 

Imagine this round:

 

1AC: 8 min of harms.

 

1NC: Concedes the 1AC.  There's nothing to debate here.  But SQ is the only option in the round, and the SQ is neg ground.

 

That's pretty dumb, right?  That's exactly where 8 min of harms gets you, because the affirmative hasn't defended doing anything.  Neg can't read a CP - there's no advocacy to compete with, so the aff can always perm.  Neg can't read a DA, there's nothing to  link to.  Neg can't read most Ks - nothing to link to except the harms rhetoric, and the aff can probably perm the alt; at best round ends in a terrible theory debate over the perm.

 

Basically, there's no substance to the aff that the neg can clash over.  (I mean, yeah, some harms can be impact turned, but it's not hard to find positions where the impact turns are offensive, like 8 minutes of racism harms).

 

Better brand a swastika on yourself you ableist, fascist pig in human clothing. / joke 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(I don't find that position particularly compelling for a debate round, since it's tantamount to claiming you win just by walking in the room and giving your 1AC, but it is a claim to solvency via a particular action, and it's the negatives job to go after it and explain why it's bad for debate.  I may be sympathetic to some negative arguments, but I'm not going to intervene.)

 

 

I probably agree that it fails to /actually/ change anything, but I absolutely fail to see how this is any different from fiat.  

A fiated aff wins by claiming you walk in the room and read an aff that solves bad shit, just like a Heideggerian aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×