Jump to content
TheSnowball

How is a capitalism kritik unique? Isn't this 'murica?

Recommended Posts

Oh my god! That is the single greatest revelation in debate ever! All Kritiks are non-uq! You've just given me my new A strat against cheaters! 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be the NPTE for RickAstley

Edit: Can also confirm, made it to the TOC making only this argument and sitting down.

Edited by RickAstley
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from what I presume is intense sarcasm, can somebody answer this in terms of K theory etc?

It is intense sarcasm because the alternative isn't the status quo, it's an alternative that ostensibly isn't capitalist. The judge isn't endorsing the squo, so capitalism's uniqueness to the plan in the status quo is wholly irrelevant. 

 

The degree to which the alternative must change the status quo to generate uniqueness is a wholly separate question and potentially the subject of a theory argument

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is intense sarcasm because the alternative isn't the status quo, it's an alternative that ostensibly isn't capitalist. The judge isn't endorsing the squo, so capitalism's uniqueness to the plan in the status quo is wholly irrelevant. 

 

The degree to which the alternative must change the status quo to generate uniqueness is a wholly separate question and potentially the subject of a theory argument

So say I run an Aff that says no more drones. Neg says banning drones somehow supports capitalism and that we should all embrace socialism. If both the squo and the world of the Aff embrace capitalism, how is the K UQ? Is it a brink kind of thing?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from what I presume is intense sarcasm, can somebody answer this in terms of K theory etc?

 

In a world of the alt, the kritik is supposedly "solved". This gives it the UQ it needs. If you vote aff, than the horrible shit that they critique will just stay locked in / get worse. Voting neg (or the on the perm) resolves this problem. It's also predicated on winning links that show that your aff is actually apart of what the K kritiks. 

 

Basically, a Kritik is designed to be non-uq on purpose. 

 

Any theory against them in general is pretty shit unless you find districts layer than my own High-School one. 

 

Though, theory against PIK/AIK's is pretty legit and you should be reading that. 

 

It'd be the NPTE for RainSilves

 

Can we keep the illusion that the NPTE is as prestigious as the TOC? I never went to the TOC but did go to the NPTE (and went 6-6 and didn't break by speaks D: ), and I want to keep thinking that I totally had it in me to be at the TOC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Can also confirm, made it to the TOC making only this argument and sitting down.

 

If this pleb is from SIU they already won the NPTE. At least we will always have footage from NPDA this year of Zach admitting he's racist for like 2 minutes so it's kk. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a world of the alt, the kritik is supposedly "solved". This gives it the UQ it needs. If you vote aff, than the horrible shit that they critique will just stay locked in / get worse. Voting neg (or the on the perm) resolves this problem. It's also predicated on winning links that show that your aff is actually apart of what the K kritiks. 

 

Basically, a Kritik is designed to be non-uq on purpose. 

 

Any theory against them in general is pretty shit unless you find districts layer than my own High-School one. 

 

Though, theory against PIK/AIK's is pretty legit and you should be reading that. 

 

 

 

Can we keep the illusion that the NPTE is as prestigious as the TOC? I never went to the TOC but did go to the NPTE (and went 6-6 and didn't break by speaks D: ), and I want to keep thinking that I totally had it in me to be at the TOC.

So then aren't the impacts non unique? Like why isn't their stuff happening in the status quo? Also, how can you get any more or less capitalist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then aren't the impacts non unique? Like why isn't their stuff happening in the status quo? Also, how can you get any more or less capitalist?

 

#1. The impact is resolved by the alt, which means the uq doesn't really matter since the K is an endorsement of the alt not the status quo. 

 

#3. Depends on the cap K in question, but most alts are supposed to resolve capitalism by doing something like direct action or arguing that the impacts of the plan destroy capitalism and that's good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then aren't the impacts non unique? Like why isn't their stuff happening in the status quo? Also, how can you get any more or less capitalist?

Many of the impacts (environmental degradation, imperialist wars, exploitation, and mass starvation) are happening in the status quo. 

 

In context of the kritik, by avoiding the action criticized by the link and embracing the approach taken by the alt. For anticapitalists who think capitalism is fundamentally a social relationship, you "get less capitalist" by changing that social relationship. For anticapitalists who think capitalism is fundamentally a question of material wealth, you redistribute wealth and put the means of production into the hands of the workers. For the smart people who realize capitalism is both, you engage in more complex, nuanced analysis that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the impacts (environmental degradation, imperialist wars, exploitation, and mass starvation) are happening in the status quo. 

 

In context of the kritik, by avoiding the action criticized by the link and embracing the approach taken by the alt. For anticapitalists who think capitalism is fundamentally a social relationship, you "get less capitalist" by changing that social relationship. For anticapitalists who think capitalism is fundamentally a question of material wealth, you redistribute wealth and put the means of production into the hands of the workers. For the smart people who realize capitalism is both, you engage in more complex, nuanced analysis that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

But if there's alt causes (surveillance legislation is nowhere near finished) how can the alt solve? If any decrease in surveillance helps capitalism, why would the plan matter? And if it's just "a step in the right direction" how do they solve the impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if there's alt causes (surveillance legislation is nowhere near finished) how can the alt solve? If any decrease in surveillance helps capitalism, why would the plan matter? And if it's just "a step in the right direction" how do they solve the impact?

1. They'll argue Root Cause (assuming a GOOD K team)

 

2. Don't understand this question...the K in question would generate links off of your plan, meaning that the plan would act as a representation of the capitalist system in whole; in short, the aff plan is not a "drop in the bucket", it is the "bucket." They'll probably argue every instance key

 

3. That is up for debate (on the alt), as is everything else on the K. A team can very well kick the alt and go for the K as a non-unique DA (although a lot of judges hate this); but most teams will argue that A) Because it's a step in the right direction, the K is key for politics away from Capitalism or B) Alt solves the K 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if there's alt causes (surveillance legislation is nowhere near finished) how can the alt solve? If any decrease in surveillance helps capitalism, why would the plan matter? And if it's just "a step in the right direction" how do they solve the impact?

The alternative typically purports to solve alternative causes; for example, if the link is "surveillance is capitalist", the alt purports to imagine a world in which surveillance doesn't exist -- along with other instantiations of capitalism. 

 

They may do the "step-in-the-right-direction" argument if the impact is a deontic ethics style impact - the Zizek and Daly card is a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. They'll argue Root Cause (assuming a GOOD K team)

 

2. Don't understand this question...the K in question would generate links off of your plan, meaning that the plan would act as a representation of the capitalist system in whole; in short, the aff plan is not a "drop in the bucket", it is the "bucket." They'll probably argue every instance key

 

3. That is up for debate (on the alt), as is everything else on the K. A team can very well kick the alt and go for the K as a non-unique DA (although a lot of judges hate this); but most teams will argue that A) Because it's a step in the right direction, the K is key for politics away from Capitalism or B) Alt solves the K

 

2. If every instance is key, how is there a root cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. If every instance is key, how is there a root cause?

 

Not all K teams say "every instance is key". That tends to be an arg used when the alt is more "real world" than usual. But, even if that is said, they will argue that the root cause of all shitty impacts is cap, and the only way to solve cap is a total rejection in all instances. This won't solve outright but is the best possible move that the judge can make to resolve all of those impacts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all K teams say "every instance is key". That tends to be an arg used when the alt is more "real world" than usual. But, even if that is said, they will argue that the root cause of all shitty impacts is cap, and the only way to solve cap is a total rejection in all instances. This won't solve outright but is the best possible move that the judge can make to resolve all of those impacts.

 

So couldn't I just say instances inevitable = cap inev = they can never solve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May also depend on the warrant for every instance key. There's some on point Zizek-applying-Agamen cards about endless deferral - policymakers rely on crisis politics to endlessly defer addressing capitalism. The warrant there is that "we'll address cap next plan" can be continuously said such that "next plan" never happens, because that could be said about any plan. Zizek meets little orphan Annie: the musical 2NC

Edited by Snarf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you say that there are alt causes to cap (besides the plan) and the team running cap 1) doesn't say alt solves, 2) concedes that the alt can't solve, and 3) doesn't have any warrants as to why it's the root cause nor every instance key?

 

Also what if the link is like "you use the usfg, the usfg is capitalist"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you say that there are alt causes to cap (besides the plan) and the team running cap 1) doesn't say alt solves, 2) concedes that the alt can't solve, and 3) doesn't have any warrants as to why it's the root cause nor every instance key?

Also what if the link is like "you use the usfg, the usfg is capitalist"

If the link is the USfg, it's called a politics DA.
  • Downvote 2

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...