Jump to content
TheSnowball

Kicking an Alternative

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

Theoretically could this happen?

 

1AC

1NC - Kritik

2AC - F/W, Theory, Perms, Solvency

Block - Kick the alt and go for link/impact as a DA + say no new args since they didn't contest that part of the K.

 

How would that work? What are the standards surrounding kicking alts? Also, could neg do that but allow new args?

 

Thanks,

Rniv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kicking the alt while retaining the K, like you've shown above, is perfectly legitimate (although it might not always be strategic.) If you kick the alt, you're stuck with a non-unique disad and no way to solve for it, which could be a problem. 

 

on the other hand, some Ks might not need that. The security K without an alt can still act as a solvency takeout/case turn to certain affirmatives. Plus the AFF can't really perm the K if there's no alt to perm.

 

i'm sure that the K debaters on cross-x will have more to say about this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kicking the alt while retaining the K, like you've shown above, is perfectly legitimate (although it might not always be strategic.) If you kick the alt, you're stuck with a non-unique disad and no way to solve for it, which could be a problem. 

 

on the other hand, some Ks might not need that. The security K without an alt can still act as a solvency takeout/case turn to certain affirmatives. Plus the AFF can't really perm the K if there's no alt to perm.

 

i'm sure that the K debaters on cross-x will have more to say about this.

My lab leaders said you should try and embed uniqueness in your link or impact evidence so you don't encounter those questions of uniqueness. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do this in front of a judge who thinks K's are for cheaters; they'll vote for you 100 percent of the time. Just be sure to state that it is now a DA so they can know its no longer a K

 

I hope y'all know that was sarcasm 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're infront of a kritikal / performance judge, when you kick any part of a K it's a performantive double turn, and if your opponent calls you out on it 9 times out of 10 they'll vote off of that. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A K is a discursive question, you can't just forget about it, either it matters or it doesn't if it doesn't you don't read it. There's other justifications for it, maybe it's only something said in college policy (the people I learned about it from), but it's definitely acceptable in LD.

 

EDIT: I can't english

Edited by bammytess
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the alt isn't actually sufficient to make the perm go away.  Because the perm means the aff has decided to test those waters, and your own evidence that you read says the Alt solves the K, and therefore the perm will solve the K (if uncontested or they win it).  You need to actually take out your own alt, not just kick it, to make the perm go away.

 

It's not just enough to say 'lol no, we were just kidding about that alt thing'.  That evidence was still read in round, and the argument (that said evidence proves the alt solves the K) was made in round.  The perm is an attempt to coopt it to serve the aff - you're going to have to treat the alt like an argument the aff read that turns the K if you don't want to go after the perm.  Or, at least, any team who's any good will win every time if you just kick the alt, for exactly this reason.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so ?When you kick the alt- pay attention to wait goes with the perm - perm is just a test of competition . 

When you kick the alt : you need to go through to see what offense/defense needs to be answered 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A K is a discursive question, you can't just forget about it, either it matters or it doesn't if it doesn't you don't read it. There's other justifications for it, maybe it's only something said in college policy (the people I learned about it from), but it's defiantly acceptable in LD.

Why does kicking an alt make the K no longer a discursive question?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does kicking an alt make the K no longer a discursive question?  

I don't think that's entirely true though. For example, a Cap K. Although I may not want to participate in historical materialism. I do think the affirmatives foundation of x, is still a bad thing, and a sufficient reason to vote negative. I don't see how kicking the alternative reorients the critique away from it's discursive foundations. You're advocating for the status quo, which is supposedly better for breaking down capitalism. All it is, is a different form of advocacy. 

 

Kicking the alt isn't actually sufficient to make the perm go away.  Because the perm means the aff has decided to test those waters, and your own evidence that you read says the Alt solves the K, and therefore the perm will solve the K (if uncontested or they win it).  You need to actually take out your own alt, not just kick it, to make the perm go away.

 

It's not just enough to say 'lol no, we were just kidding about that alt thing'.  That evidence was still read in round, and the argument (that said evidence proves the alt solves the K) was made in round.  The perm is an attempt to coopt it to serve the aff - you're going to have to treat the alt like an argument the aff read that turns the K if you don't want to go after the perm.  Or, at least, any team who's any good will win every time if you just kick the alt, for exactly this reason.

I agree with Jared on this one. Perm is just a test of competition, not "an attempt to coopt it to serve the aff". Teams can't advocate for perms and say the K is their's now, that'd be cheating 10/10. If you kick the alternative and therefore, the advocacy I don't see why you still have to test the competition of a linear disad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jared on this one. Perm is just a test of competition, not "an attempt to coopt it to serve the aff". Teams can't advocate for perms and say the K is their's now, that'd be cheating 10/10. If you kick the alternative and therefore, the advocacy I don't see why you still have to test the competition of a linear disad. 

 

While the perm can be 'just' a test of competition...

 

1. The Affirmative is allowed to advocate the perm. The aff is allowed to believe in more than one thing, and advocate those things which don't compete (especially when the negative introduces them!)

 

2. The perm proves the aff isn't fatal to adopting the K.  If you can do plan and adopt the alt, that means you can, for all practical purposes, adopt the discourse of the K, and on some level that means the aff doesn't actually trade off with the K.

 

3. The negative brought it up!  That discoursive act happened in the round.  "Lol just kidding" is far worse for the ethos of the K than whatever the K link story is 99% of the time.

 

4. When there is offense on a position, you can't just kick the position and pretend it didn't happened.  If someone reads a DA, and the aff successfully impact turns the DA, that becomes an advantage of plan!  Neg can't just kick it, they have to prove it doesn't link to the plan or otherwise kill the aff offense to actually make it go away.  The perm is offense - kicking the alt or even the whole K isn't sufficient to make it go away - compatibility with the alt is now an advantage of plan, and the affirmative is allowed to use that.

 

And cheating? Come on.  If you bring a gun intending to shoot someone, then hand the gun to your target, you're not allowed to cry foul when they shoot you with it.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A K is a discursive question, you can't just forget about it, either it matters or it doesn't if it doesn't you don't read it. There's other justifications for it, maybe it's only something said in college policy (the people I learned about it from), but it's defiantly acceptable in LD.

I think you're almost entirely wrong (my opinion):

1) not every K is a discursive question

2) you can def prove the K is still a discursive question

3) why are you acting like the alt is the only way to achieve framing?

4) why is it still a performative double turn? Your answer to Pablo's question (i.e. the post I'm quoting) doesn't really make sense at all, especially if you throw condo into the question.

5) it really does just seem like you truly believe condo is bad, in which case a ton of judges will disagree with you

Edited by aram
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That performative double turn stuff is not persuasive. If it was true that kicking a part of the K was a double turn then why aren't aff's losing left on right when kicking out of the entirety of the K? I also curious who told you college judges "lecture you" for that.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the perm can be 'just' a test of competition...

 

1. The Affirmative is allowed to advocate the perm. The aff is allowed to believe in more than one thing, and advocate those things which don't compete (especially when the negative introduces them!)

 

2. The perm proves the aff isn't fatal to adopting the K.  If you can do plan and adopt the alt, that means you can, for all practical purposes, adopt the discourse of the K, and on some level that means the aff doesn't actually trade off with the K.

 

3. The negative brought it up!  That discoursive act happened in the round.  "Lol just kidding" is far worse for the ethos of the K than whatever the K link story is 99% of the time.

 

4. When there is offense on a position, you can't just kick the position and pretend it didn't happened.  If someone reads a DA, and the aff successfully impact turns the DA, that becomes an advantage of plan!  Neg can't just kick it, they have to prove it doesn't link to the plan or otherwise kill the aff offense to actually make it go away.  The perm is offense - kicking the alt or even the whole K isn't sufficient to make it go away - compatibility with the alt is now an advantage of plan, and the affirmative is allowed to use that.

 

And cheating? Come on.  If you bring a gun intending to shoot someone, then hand the gun to your target, you're not allowed to cry foul when they shoot you with it.

I think it is cheating if you don't in any way affect it. I see what you mean by adopting both the criticism and the alternative, but I think if you're net neutral on an issue, you shouldn't be able to advocate it. I mean, I couldn't read a Heg Aff unless I actually increased hegemony. I'd tend to agree if a link turn was also applied, if not... I don't how you can say 'we solve cap' when you just don't do anything aside from the alternative to affect the issue at all. (which also severs you from the resolution, curtailing domestic surveillance and participating in x alternative makes your advocacy extremely unstable, and probably not topical, and also makes your plan/advocacy a moving target meaning it's impossible to negate cuz you can just perm any offense read) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the perm can be 'just' a test of competition...

 

1. The Affirmative is allowed to advocate the perm. The aff is allowed to believe in more than one thing, and advocate those things which don't compete (especially when the negative introduces them!)

 

Wait wait wait . So if a team reads 2 CP's and kicks one of them , they can say lets do that one you kicked to solve the other CP's NB? Or 2ac response to a cp can just be another plank to the aff bc they can believe in more than the plan? 

Edited by MrEragonSaph
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A K is a discursive question, you can't just forget about it, either it matters or it doesn't if it doesn't you don't read it. There's other justifications for it, maybe it's only something said in college policy (the people I learned about it from), but it's defiantly acceptable in LD.

http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a misconception about what 'kicking' an argument entails.  It doesn't call balefire down on the argument and retroactively change the round so that argument never happens.  A kick is the negative saying 'this argument is irrelevant to determining the desirability of the Aff'.  Generally, the negative should concede a no link, non-unique, or other similar argument which causes that to happen.  (On T, the concession is that the aff does meet).  When an argument is successfully kicked, it still happened in the round, but both sides have agreed that it has no material bearing on deciding the round.  

 

Kicks fail when the argument does still have relevance for arguments in the round, and the affirmative chooses to pursue that relevance.

 

Wait wait wait . So if a team reads 2 CP's and kicks one of them , they can say lets do that one you kicked to solve the other CP's NB? Or 2ac response to a cp can just be another plank to the aff bc they can believe in more than the plan? 

 

I'm okay with that.  Remember, the resolution only constrains what the aff can introduce, and topicality only applies to Plan.  But the aff didn't introduce the CP, the neg did.  Once it's in the round, the evidence involved is fair game.  It doesn't just disappear.  And the parts of the perm that aren't Plan aren't subject to Topicality.

 

I think it is cheating if you don't in any way affect it. I see what you mean by adopting both the criticism and the alternative, but I think if you're net neutral on an issue, you shouldn't be able to advocate it. I mean, I couldn't read a Heg Aff unless I actually increased hegemony. I'd tend to agree if a link turn was also applied, if not... I don't how you can say 'we solve cap' when you just don't do anything aside from the alternative to affect the issue at all. (which also severs you from the resolution, curtailing domestic surveillance and participating in x alternative makes your advocacy extremely unstable, and probably not topical, and also makes your plan/advocacy a moving target meaning it's impossible to negate cuz you can just perm any offense read) 

 

I'd say that a successful perm is fundamentally a link or internal link turn, and the explanation of how the plan works with the alternative is the warrant for that.  Even if it's just compatibility.

 

Advocating a position the negative brought up does not in any way sever you from the resolution so long as you still advocate plan.  Topicality is a non-starter, as long as the plan is topical, the aff has met that burden.  

 

Completely predictable - the negative introduced the alternative.  It's their own evidence.  If they couldn't predict their own evidence, that's their problem, not a reason to reject the aff.

 

Completely possible to negate.  Have the perm debate.  Prove they can't make the perm.  If you can't win that debate, maybe you shouldn't have read that alt, or possibly the K itself, in the first place.  Kicking the alt to magically escape the perm is lazy thinking, and is fundamentally unfair to the affirmative.  Holding you accountable for your own strategic choices is the essence of fairness.

 

And if you're net neutral on an issue, you shouldn't lose on it either.  Kicking the alt doesn't magically make the aff otherwise if the perm proved they were net neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're infront of a kritikal / performance judge, when you kick any part of a K it's a performantive double turn, and if your opponent calls you out on it 9 times out of 10 they'll vote off of that. 

 

I pulled a 1-2 decision against a NPTE team that is much better than me when they read a queerness K with a condo ult by kicking my whole 1AC and going for condo Identity Politics Advocacies bad, using args like "Trans people can't sever out of their identity so why do you get to when you're advocating for them but suddenly it gets turned? That's fucked up and simply non-genuine and ultimately commidfying". If your K is anything to do with Identity Politics you better not read it condo because that's an easy way for a K oriented judge to vote in the 2AC". Discursive links like that are powerful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're almost entirely wrong (my opinion):

1) not every K is a discursive question

2) you can def prove the K is still a discursive question

3) why are you acting like the alt is the only way to achieve framing?

4) why is it still a performative double turn? Your answer to Pablo's question (i.e. the post I'm quoting) doesn't really make sense at all, especially if you throw condo into the question.

5) it really does just seem like you truly believe condo is bad, in which case a ton of judges will disagree with you

I'm sorry that it seems I think condo is bad, I'm a strong believer in condo good, except with kritikal args, it's my opinion and I know others share the same. 

I'm also sorry that I'm acting like the alt is the only way to achieve framing, because I don't think that's true at all. In my opinion, a good K shouldn't achieve framing from the alt, but also a good K wouldn't need to kick the alt. 

I think the judgments you're making about me don't reflect what I believe in as a debater. 

 

Sorry aram, thanks for trying. <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that it seems I think condo is bad, I'm a strong believer in condo good, except with kritikal args, it's my opinion and I know others share the same. 

I'm also sorry that I'm acting like the alt is the only way to achieve framing, because I don't think that's true at all. In my opinion, a good K shouldn't achieve framing from the alt, but also a good K wouldn't need to kick the alt. 

I think the judgments you're making about me don't reflect what I believe in as a debater. 

 

Sorry aram, thanks for trying. <3

The only challenge you seem to isolate is the discursive questioning thing, and that is literally just a condo question that most people will disagree with you on. I agree that you probably shouldn't endorse kicking the alt in identity ptx criticisms.

On the other hand, I don't know how much experience you have with kritikal alternatives, because there are certain times when kicking the alt is a strategic option, regardless of whether or not you think the K is "good/bad." I think the question of that binarization is another argument to be had. 

That's fair, just seems like it based off of the one post I've seen you have on here.

 

welc

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...