Jump to content
Adidas06

K aff Disads?

Recommended Posts

I was watching Highland Park BD's cx of Little Rock WW off of stream. The 2a had a pretty good point when he asked the 1n if they get links to disads like biometrics on K affs.

 

How do you answer disads with K affs? Do you just no-link because you "advocate" instead of "implement?"

 

I'm writing a K aff for next year so this could be helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You open yourself to a lot of (probably true) fairness claims if you can just not link to any disads... I would be careful even if you can go this route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

answer like you would with a regular da and policy aff just with lots more nuanced impact turn analysis. if you can't defend why x is bad, you shouldn't read an aff about x being bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a disad to a K aff is more like an impact turn to whatever they're criticizing.

 

But like, what if an aff's advocacy statement is like "Thus we condemn USFG surveillance" or "We affirm a ptx of resistance to..." etc. Can you read a disad that's not necessarily surveillance good, but an indirect one, like ptx? 

 

Not only ptx, but you know what I mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rnivium is partially correct in saying that a disad can be something along the lines of an impact turn to the aff, however if you examine what a disad is and its structure then it becomes apparent that "policy-esque" disads can frame the majority of argumentation that uses this structure. You can very easily put disads on the framework debate, specifically on their method, in order to provide some kind of, well, disadvantage to voting for them while going for another framing argument that is separate from the da such as framing. An example of this would be something occular-centrism as a da in order to create offense on accessibility against a hist. mat. aff that uses paintings whilst still going for a counter advocacy. This serves as a kind of offense and impact mitigation towards the opponents framework while still allowing you to go for your own arguments that are in an entirely different vein than the da is from.

 

Edited for depth: I also think that this is a good place to start analysis on no linking policy da's. Of course that line of argumentation should be much more nuanced, warranted, and justified if something such as spiking out of da's based on method is occurring. Like TheZodiacKiller said, "if you can't defend why x is bad, you shouldn't read an aff about x being bad."

Edited by ThomasDB8
  • Upvote 1

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...