Jump to content
debateak

Evidence K

Recommended Posts

Okay, okay, hear me out. I know the majority of debaters loath this K, but I honestly don't understand why. I'm not saying we should kritik the use of evidence, I'm saying that we should kritik the fact that others call us out for not using evidence. All I know about this K is from the Introduction to Policy Debate webpage on Kritiks, but I think the argument shows promise. I wouldn't advocate using it on neg because that would require running it in the 2NC after the 2AC calls out the 1N for not using evidence, which would be kinda unfair. So I think running a 1AC that doesn't have any evidence and then kritiking them on calling you out on evidence, and then using the fact that they read evidence to turn all their args. The 2ac could talk about how the usage of evidence is an appeal to authority and also that requiring evidence excludes the cases and ideas that are original or that not many educated people like to write about. Could someone help me understand why everyone hates this K?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not good for debate / has no philosophical backing / its an impossible flow to win unless you say education bad which, even then, is an uphill battle.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds awful tbh running this argument kills education and really doesn't allow real debate to flourish. Evidence is necessary for change to really happen

Edited by osahoniyamu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not good for debate / has no philosophical backing / its an impossible flow to win unless you say education bad which, even then, is an uphill battle.

Agreed. But what are yalls thoughts on a K of having really bad evidence. Like were tags aren't supported by the card, and like three words are highlighted? Would a theory argument be legit? 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. But what are yalls thoughts on a K of having really bad evidence. Like were tags aren't supported by the card, and like three words are highlighted? Would a theory argument be legit? 

yeah, an argument about unethical card cutting (if it's actually unethical), otherwise just make an arg like "your evidence sucks." A K would be a really pointless and bad argument

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. But what are yalls thoughts on a K of having really bad evidence. Like were tags aren't supported by the card, and like three words are highlighted? Would a theory argument be legit?

 

That's not a theory argument, you don't need to make things complicated. Just be like, judge, this is shit evidence, give it low weight/don't evaluate it because whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that arguments need to have "evidence" backing them up in order to be credible is a norm that should be questioned. Especially because in debate, "evidence" isn't as much truths about science as it is the opinions of philosophers and people who have a certain belief on a topic. In that scenario, arguing that an argument ought to fail because it isn't being backed by anyone who is willing to write an article or book on it(evidence), is bad because it destroys the voice of the minority and bases arguments on the opinions of someone in authority. Again, I'm not necessarily saying that using evidence is bad, just that disregarding arguments because they have no evidence backing them is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that arguments need to have "evidence" backing them up in order to be credible is a norm that should be questioned. Especially because in debate, "evidence" isn't as much truths about science as it is the opinions of philosophers and people who have a certain belief on a topic. In that scenario, arguing that an argument ought to fail because it isn't being backed by anyone who is willing to write an article or book on it(evidence), is bad because it destroys the voice of the minority and bases arguments on the opinions of someone in authority. Again, I'm not necessarily saying that using evidence is bad, just that disregarding arguments because they have no evidence backing them is wrong.

yeah I've never heard someone make an arg against a race k, for example, saying "you need evidence lmao get outta here," so I doubt that's really a huge problem.

 

I think arguments questioning things like personal narratives are legit though. 

 

Keep in mind that if you're debating an argument like the ptx/terror/any policy arg, you should def have evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I've never heard someone make an arg against a race k, for example, saying "you need evidence lmao get outta here," so I doubt that's really a huge problem.

 

I think arguments questioning things like personal narratives are legit though. 

 

Keep in mind that if you're debating an argument like the ptx/terror/any policy arg, you should def have evidence.

like what? anything that I can think of is borderline to pretty racist. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like what? anything that I can think of is borderline to pretty racist. 

wendy brown writes a lot of cards which are pretty square non-racist answers to political deployment of narratives

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that arguments need to have "evidence" backing them up in order to be credible is a norm that should be questioned. Especially because in debate, "evidence" isn't as much truths about science as it is the opinions of philosophers and people who have a certain belief on a topic. In that scenario, arguing that an argument ought to fail because it isn't being backed by anyone who is willing to write an article or book on it(evidence), is bad because it destroys the voice of the minority and bases arguments on the opinions of someone in authority. Again, I'm not necessarily saying that using evidence is bad, just that disregarding arguments because they have no evidence backing them is wrong.

This actually might be a solid argument. This is a critique of knowledge production, and the way in which the affirmative relies on "expert" knowledge in place of their own reasoning / personal investigation. Teams used to run expertism kritiks waaaaaaay back when, and there's different flavors of this argument (orientalism lit criticizes a specific subset of experts, for example). I'm sure you can find cards to back this and/or backfiles -- the hardest part seems to be the perm ("the 1AC is an original work of scholarship")

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of "bait" 1ACs that try to lure teams into making a certain argument. This would maybe work at one tournament, and then everyone would just answer your arguments without bothering to criticize you for not using evidence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, okay, hear me out. I know the majority of debaters loath this K, but I honestly don't understand why. I'm not saying we should kritik the use of evidence, I'm saying that we should kritik the fact that others call us out for not using evidence. All I know about this K is from the Introduction to Policy Debate webpage on Kritiks, but I think the argument shows promise. I wouldn't advocate using it on neg because that would require running it in the 2NC after the 2AC calls out the 1N for not using evidence, which would be kinda unfair. So I think running a 1AC that doesn't have any evidence and then kritiking them on calling you out on evidence, and then using the fact that they read evidence to turn all their args. The 2ac could talk about how the usage of evidence is an appeal to authority and also that requiring evidence excludes the cases and ideas that are original or that not many educated people like to write about. Could someone help me understand why everyone hates this K?

Thanks.

Spoken like a true LDer

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like what? anything that I can think of is borderline to pretty racist. 

This is a decent card we read occasionally that Krakoff gave me - I know Joy James has similar thoughts, as well as Wendy Brown: 

 

Positioning personal experience as a justification for action creates a insulation from reevaluation--“You can’t criticize how I felt!” This process prevents criticism of the status quo, which can be rendered as purely subjective—“That’s only your experience, it can’t be applied to larger structural problems of social organization.”  The project of making experience visible debilitates revolutionary praxis

Scott 97. Joan Scott, Professor of History at Princeton, 1997, Feminists Theorize the Political, “Experience”

 

When the evidence offered is the evidence of “experience,” the claim for referentiality is further buttressed – what could be truer, after all, than a subject's own account of what he or she has lived through?  It is precisely this kind of appeal to experience as uncontestable evidence and as an originary point of explaanation – as foundation upon which analysis is based – that weakens the critical thrust of histories of difference.  By remaining within the epistemological frame of orthodox history, these studies lose the possibility of examining those assumptions and practices that excluded considerations of difference in the first place.  They take as self-evidence the identities of those whose experience is being documented and thus naturalize their difference.  They locate resistance outside its discursive construction and reify agency as an inherent attribute of individuals, thus decontextualizing it.  When experience is taken as the origin or knowledge, the vision of the individual subject (the person who had the experience of the historian who recounts it) becomes the bedrock of evidence upon which explanation is built.  Questions about the constructed nature of experience, about how subjects are constituted as different in the first place, about how one's vision s structured – about language (or discursive) and history – are left aside.  The evidence of experience then becomes evidence for the fact of difference rather than a way of exploring how difference is established, how it operates, how and in what ways it constitutes subjects who see and act in the world.   To put it another way, the evidence of experience, whether conceived through a metaphor of visibility or in any other way that takes meaning as transparent, reproduces rather than contests given ideological systems- those that assume that the facts of history speak for themselves and, in the case of histories of gender, those that rest on notions of a natural or established opposition between sexual practices and social conventions, and between homosexuality and heterosexuality.  Histories that document the hidden world of homosexuality, for example, show the impact of silence and repression on the lives of those affected by it and bring to light the history of their suppression and exploitation.  But the project of making experience visible precludes critical examination of the workings of the ideological system itself, it's categories of representation (homosexual/heterosexual, man/woman, black/white as fixed immutable identities), its premises about what these categories mean and how they operate, its notions of subjects, origin, and cause. The project of making experience visible precludes analysis of the workings of this system and of its historicity; instead it reproduces its terms.  We come to appreciate the consequences of the closeting of homosexuals and we understand repression as an interested act of power or domination; alternative behaviors and institutions also become available to us.  What we don't have is a way of placing those alternatives within the framework of (historically contingent) dominant patterns of sexuality and the ideology that supports them.  We know they exists, but not the extent of the critique.  Making visible the experience of a different group exposes the existence of repressive mechanisms, but not their inner workings or logics; we know that difference exists, but we don't understand it as constituted relationally.  For that we need to attend to the historical processes that, through discourse, position subjects and produce their experiences.  It is not individuals who have experience, but subjects who are constituted  through experience.  Experience in this definition then becomes not the origin of our explanation, not the authoritative (because seen or felt) evidence that grounds what is know, but rather what we seek to explain, that about which knowledge is produced.  To think about experience in this way is to historicize it as well as to historicize the identities it produces.  This kind of historicizing represents a reply to the many contemporary historians who have argued that an unproblematized “experience” is the foundation of their practice; it is a historicizing that implies critical scrutiny of all explanatory categories usually taken for granted, including the category of “experience.”

 
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, okay, hear me out. I know the majority of debaters loath this K, but I honestly don't understand why. I'm not saying we should kritik the use of evidence, I'm saying that we should kritik the fact that others call us out for not using evidence. All I know about this K is from the Introduction to Policy Debate webpage on Kritiks, but I think the argument shows promise. I wouldn't advocate using it on neg because that would require running it in the 2NC after the 2AC calls out the 1N for not using evidence, which would be kinda unfair. So I think running a 1AC that doesn't have any evidence and then kritiking them on calling you out on evidence, and then using the fact that they read evidence to turn all their args. The 2ac could talk about how the usage of evidence is an appeal to authority and also that requiring evidence excludes the cases and ideas that are original or that not many educated people like to write about. Could someone help me understand why everyone hates this K?

Thanks.

Hoppe 99 would destroy this argument

Edited by elmeryang00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does Hoppe 88 say?

My bad - I meant Hoppe 99

speaking the language of experts solves cession of science and politics to ideological elites who dominate the argumentative frame

Hoppe 99 Robert Hoppe is Professor of Policy and knowledge in the Faculty of Management and Governance at Twente University, the Netherlands. "Argumentative Turn" Science and Public Policy, volume 26, number 3, June 1999, pages 201–210 works.bepress.com

ACCORDING TO LASSWELL (1971), policy science is about the production and application of knowledge of and in policy. Policy-makers who desire to tackle problems on the political agenda successfully, should be able to mobilise the best available knowledge. This requires high-quality knowledge in policy. Policy-makers and, in a democracy, citizens, also need to know how policy processes really evolve. This demands precise knowledge of policy. There is an obvious link between the two: the more and better the knowledge of policy, the easier it is to mobilise knowledge in policy. Lasswell expresses this interdependence by defining the policy scientist's operational task as eliciting the maximum rational judgement of all those involved in policy-making. For the applied policy scientist or policy analyst this implies the development of two skills. First, for the sake of mobilising the best available knowledge in policy, he/she should be able to mediate between different scientific disciplines. Second, to optimise the interdependence between science in and of policy, she/he should be able to mediate between science and politics. Hence Dunn's (1994, page 84) formal definition of policy analysis as an applied social science discipline that uses multiple research methods in a context of argumentation, public debate [and political struggle] to create, evaluate critically, and communicate policy-relevant knowledge. Historically, the differentiation and successful institutionalisation of policy science can be interpreted as the spread of the functions of knowledge organisation, storage, dissemination and application in the knowledge system (Dunn and Holzner, 1988; van de Graaf and Hoppe, 1989, page 29). Moreover, this scientification of hitherto 'unscientised' functions, by including science of policy explicitly, aimed to gear them to the political system. In that sense, Lerner and Lasswell's (1951) call for policy sciences anticipated, and probably helped bring about, the scientification of politics. Peter Weingart (1999) sees the development of the science-policy nexus as a dialectical process of the scientification of politics/policy and the politicisation of science. Numerous studies of political controversies indeed show that science advisors behave like any other self-interested actor (Nelkin, 1995). Yet science somehow managed to maintain its functional cognitive authority in politics. This may be because of its changing shape, which has been characterised as the emergence of a post-parliamentary and post-national network democracy (Andersen and Burns, 1996, pages 227-251). National political developments are put in the background by ideas about uncontrollable, but apparently inevitable, international developments; in Europe, national state authority and power in public policy-making is leaking away to a new political and administrative elite, situated in the institutional ensemble of the European Union. National representation is in the hands of political parties which no longer control ideological debate. The authority and policy-making power of national governments is also leaking away towards increasingly powerful policy-issue networks, dominated by functional representation by interest groups and practical experts. In this situation, public debate has become even more fragile than it was. It has become diluted by the predominance of purely pragmatic, managerial and administrative argument, and under-articulated as a result of an explosion of new political schemata that crowd out the more conventional ideologies. The new schemata do feed on the ideologies; but in larger part they consist of a random and unarticulated 'mish-mash' of attitudes and images derived from ethnic, local-cultural, professional, religious, social movement and personal political experiences. The market-place of political ideas and arguments is thriving; but on the other hand, politicians and citizens are at a loss to judge its nature and quality. Neither political parties, nor public officials, interest groups, nor social movements and citizen groups, nor even the public media show any inclination, let alone competency, in ordering this inchoate field. In such conditions, scientific debate provides a much needed minimal amount of order and articulation of concepts, arguments and ideas. Although frequently more in rhetoric than substance, reference to scientific 'validation' does provide politicians, public officials and citizens alike with some sort of compass in an ideological universe in disarray. For policy analysis to have any political impact under such conditions, it should be able somehow to continue 'speaking truth' to political elites who are ideologically uprooted, but cling to power; to the elites of administrators, managers, professionals and experts who vie for power in the jungle of organisations populating the functional policy domains of post-parliamentary democracy; and to a broader audience of an ideologically disoriented and politically disenchanted citizenry.

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...