Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have seen this term/k brought up a lot, and what I understand from it is that: "Policy making & our world is too complex for crazy link chains to be probable or waste time on." It seems to make sense to me, and looks like a good way to reject crazy disads. But, I dont understand its operation as a K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen this term/k brought up a lot, and what I understand from it is that: "Policy making & our world is too complex for crazy link chains to be probable or waste time on." It seems to make sense to me, and looks like a good way to reject crazy disads. But, I dont understand its operation as a K?

Link: The Affirmative operates in linear thinking. They say X is key to Y is key to Z is key to nuclear war.

Impact: When we only use this kind of thinking, it makes solving things like war, environmental destruction, terrorism, and other issues impossible because we don't understand the litany and combination of factors that drive issues.

Alternative: Reject linear thinking for complexity because then we understand the interlinked nature of issues and can solve them better.

 

Not a very philosophical K, but a very material one.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link: The Affirmative operates in linear thinking. They say X is key to Y is key to Z is key to nuclear war.

Impact: When we only use this kind of thinking, it makes solving things like war, environmental destruction, terrorism, and other issues impossible because we don't understand the litany and combination of factors that drive issues.

Alternative: Reject linear thinking for complexity because then we understand the interlinked nature of issues and can solve them better.

 

Not a very philosophical K, but a very material one.

This was a good breakdown, but I thought this was more of an AFF prevention to crazy disads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a good breakdown, but I thought this was more of an AFF prevention to crazy disads?

I suppose it could be applied that way, but honestly - to me - more specific answers to a DA are better because 1. they disprove the specifics and 2. the Aff probably links as much as the Neg does. In my opinion, it functions a lot better as a K because the Negative can weigh it as a framing question to the Aff, and gets an alternative. If the Aff runs this as a DA answer, it's non-unique because there are lots of other instances of linear thinking the Aff can't resolve.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it could be applied that way, but honestly - to me - more specific answers to a DA are better because 1. they disprove the specifics and 2. the Aff probably links as much as the Neg does. In my opinion, it functions a lot better as a K because the Negative can weigh it as a framing question to the Aff, and gets an alternative. If the Aff runs this as a DA answer, it's non-unique because there are lots of other instances of linear thinking the Aff can't resolve.

good point, so I would use this to kind of put into question their advatage scenarios/solvency. Im wriitng it right now, but I'm confused. If complexity tells us that we cant make these assumptions bc any action will have 1000 results- how is the impact unique? If everything is so complex- how will non-linear (my card says "systematic") thinking be any more effeicent in finding answers?

 

p.s: My impact card also seems shoddy- should i just use analytics? Like I get the argument- things are to complex for poltics to be broken down into a linear model- nothing would ever actually get done unless there was a broader big picture envisonment and multi-faceted approach. Is there some generic card everyone uses, or does everyone kinda wing it?

Edited by Jullianv1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point, so I would use this to kind of put into question their advatage scenarios/solvency. Im wriitng it right now, but I'm confused. If complexity tells us that we cant make these assumptions bc any action will have 1000 results- how is the impact unique? If everything is so complex- how will non-linear (my card says "systematic") thinking be any more effeicent in finding answers?

 

p.s: My impact card also seems shoddy- should i just use analytics? Like I get the argument- things are to complex for poltics to be broken down into a linear model- nothing would ever actually get done unless there was a broader big picture envisonment and multi-faceted approach. Is there some generic card everyone uses, or does everyone kinda wing it?

In answer to the uniqueness thing, complexity theory isn't saying predictions are bad, it's saying linear scenarios are bad. Read the analysis in that link Snark put up if you haven't.

Uniqueness comes from the alt. Chaos theory states that "the present will determine the future, but an estimate of the present cannot be used to determine an estimate of the future." Obviously, policy makers use linear scenarios all the time, but they wouldn't in the world of the alt.

Say the Affirmative argues we should promote trade with China. This helps the economy, and economic stability decreases the liklihood the U.S. and China will go to war in the South China Sea. If policy-makers relied on this kind of thinking, they would adopt single approaches to complex issues. They might sign an agreement to increase trade and say "boom, problem solved, I guess the South China Sea isn't an issue anymore." And then cycical military buildup drives U.S. China war to happen anyway. This is an example of how linear thinking would ignore critical factors while complexity theory necessitates a multi-faceted approach.

Now think about that example with any impact. If we only focus on solar power to deal with warming, CO2 emissions from coal burning might push us over the brink.

 

I don't think there's a common card lots of people run. Research things like serial policy failure and short-termism as well as the negative side of positivism. More importantly, make arguments about why linearity is an impact turn to the Aff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the uniqueness thing, complexity theory isn't saying predictions are bad, it's saying linear scenarios are bad. Read the analysis in that link Snark put up if you haven't.

Uniqueness comes from the alt. Chaos theory states that "the present will determine the future, but an estimate of the present cannot be used to determine an estimate of the future." Obviously, policy makers use linear scenarios all the time, but they wouldn't in the world of the alt.

Say the Affirmative argues we should promote trade with China. This helps the economy, and economic stability decreases the liklihood the U.S. and China will go to war in the South China Sea. If policy-makers relied on this kind of thinking, they would adopt single approaches to complex issues. They might sign an agreement to increase trade and say "boom, problem solved, I guess the South China Sea isn't an issue anymore." And then cycical military buildup drives U.S. China war to happen anyway. This is an example of how linear thinking would ignore critical factors while complexity theory necessitates a multi-faceted approach.

Now think about that example with any impact. If we only focus on solar power to deal with warming, CO2 emissions from coal burning might push us over the brink.

 

I don't think there's a common card lots of people run. Research things like serial policy failure and short-termism as well as the negative side of positivism. More importantly, make arguments about why linearity is an impact turn to the Aff.

I think I fully get it now, but isnt this easy to perm? Like, if I run the alt that says "we need a systematic approach for effective policy"- cant they literally say "The aff recognizes there are several different conclusions" and just go on with their plan to help the jewish population in china? Can't they perm the paradigm while still arguing that their scenario is still likely/a possibility? 

Edited by Jullianv1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run this K as a floating pik. Furreal. 

So say their poltical methodolgy sucks and take their plan and argue that I see the big picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So say their poltical methodolgy sucks and take their plan and argue that I see the big picture?

1. Links are DAs because the perm still allows the linearity of the Aff.

2. Because the K is basically a thinking/scholarship K, emdorsing the perm still endorses linear thinking.

3. (I think this was in the 2012 NDT round Snark posted about) If the perm gives scholars the choice between linear and complex thinking they will always pick linear because it's easy.

4. The perm endorses a "just this once" mentality that any instance is justified as an exception which wrecks solvency.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Links are DAs because the perm still allows the linearity of the Aff.

2. Because the K is basically a thinking/scholarship K, emdorsing the perm still endorses linear thinking.

3. (I think this was in the 2012 NDT round Snark posted about) If the perm gives scholars the choice between linear and complex thinking they will always pick linear because it's easy.

4. The perm endorses a "just this once" mentality that any instance is justified as an exception which wrecks solvency.

So if they go for the "I'll change my mind of thinking"- I wouldnt go for a theory argument? I would just argue within the K that by doing that they engage in a "just this once exception' and that they judge needs to vote down that initial paradigm? Also, how does endorsing the perm endorse the K? Is this under the assumption that the perm is a simple "do both" or does this logic apply to a perm that severes the linearity of the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they go for the "I'll change my mind of thinking"- I wouldnt go for a theory argument? I would just argue within the K that by doing that they engage in a "just this once exception' and that they judge needs to vote down that initial paradigm? Also, how does endorsing the perm endorse the K? Is this under the assumption that the perm is a simple "do both" or does this logic apply to a perm that severes the linearity of the plan

Bit of a double bind - either they sever their representations or the perm still links.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a double bind - either they sever their representations or the perm still links.

Sever the representations? Also, it seems to me that when I run this K- I cant really do anything else? Lest I bite into it too- bc how can I truly be systematic (like who is the arbiter on that)- and more importantly why can I claim that they dont think systematically? I finshed my K  but I still see these as big holes in it

Edited by Jullianv1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sever the representations? Also, it seems to me that when I run this K- I cant really do anything else? Lest I bite into it too- bc how can I truly be systematic (like who is the arbiter on that)- and more importantly why can I claim that they dont think systematically? I finshed my K  but I still see these as big holes in it

By severing representations I mean by voting on the perm, the judge would vote Affirmative without making the Aff defend the way they describe the world.

If you were going to go for the K, you should extend it with a lot of case arguments. If you can prove that their thinking is bad, the judge should still reject it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By severing representations I mean by voting on the perm, the judge would vote Affirmative without making the Aff defend the way they describe the world.

If you were going to go for the K, you should extend it with a lot of case arguments. If you can prove that their thinking is bad, the judge should still reject it

Wouldnt I want them to defend the way the describe the world? Because thats how I keep them defending linear instead of claiming to be complex- because im scared theyll just claim theyre complex in their link chain and then its end game. 

 

And so I'd just run the K and make blocks and "COMPLEX" turns to their advantage scenarios? I've been hearing people say that this K should come in the Neg block? What would you recommend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know where to get good cards for this? Or have one to trade if so PM me.

I have some cards I looked for, but what were you looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a basic shell.

TortillaBoy used it a lot in surveillance v debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldnt I want them to defend the way the describe the world? Because thats how I keep them defending linear instead of claiming to be complex- because im scared theyll just claim theyre complex in their link chain and then its end game. 

 

And so I'd just run the K and make blocks and "COMPLEX" turns to their advantage scenarios? I've been hearing people say that this K should come in the Neg block? What would you recommend?

Well if they don't defend their representations they should lose or get the perm rejected because they aren't proving the Aff is bad.

I would introduce it in the 1NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a problem that i always struggled with regarding complexity:

take a generic shell - rosenau, saperstein, etc. - the link is Newtonian linearity, the impact is global warfare/enviro stuff, and the alt is some vague call to adopt complexity as a paradigm for more sustainable planning

 

isn't the process of establishing a positivistic causal relationship between linear predictions and war, ironically, a linear prediction? i.e., even if a complex array of factors/catalysts/etc. render status quo models unsustainable and risk xyz extinction claim, predicting that the inevitable result will be "war" seems to reify similar notions of linear relationship

 

tl;dr, a q for k hacks: how can the neg insulate the impact debate from this seeming double turn? i'm guessing that the answer is some fine distinction between newtonian linearity and complex relationships of causality, but it seems like common complexity lit like bernstein would indict both

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a problem that i always struggled with regarding complexity:

take a generic shell - rosenau, saperstein, etc. - the link is Newtonian linearity, the impact is global warfare/enviro stuff, and the alt is some vague call to adopt complexity as a paradigm for more sustainable planning

 

isn't the process of establishing a positivistic causal relationship between linear predictions and war, ironically, a linear prediction? i.e., even if a complex array of factors/catalysts/etc. render status quo models unsustainable and risk xyz extinction claim, predicting that the inevitable result will be "war" seems to reify similar notions of linear relationship

 

tl;dr, a q for k hacks: how can the neg insulate the impact debate from this seeming double turn? i'm guessing that the answer is some fine distinction between newtonian linearity and complex relationships of causality, but it seems like common complexity lit like bernstein would indict both

I would argue that the K doesn't say linear thinking causes extinction. It says a complex array of problems cause extinction and linearity allows us to ignore them. So it isn't a proportional positivist logic that linearity is destructive, but rather the holistic interpretation that realistic issues exist and will become dangerous if not dealt with through complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it could be applied that way, but honestly - to me - more specific answers to a DA are better because 1. they disprove the specifics and 2. the Aff probably links as much as the Neg does. In my opinion, it functions a lot better as a K because the Negative can weigh it as a framing question to the Aff, and gets an alternative. If the Aff runs this as a DA answer, it's non-unique because there are lots of other instances of linear thinking the Aff can't resolve.

  

 

Nonsense. Just because you don't evaluate *every* possible non-linear alternative doesn't mean anything. This is where Rescher comes in.

 

Furthermore, why would it matter, from a framework perspective that the Aff on evaluates A and B but not C? The idea behind the framework or K is that one engages non-linear thinking... not the degree to which one is non-linear.

 

 

 

Sever the representations? Also, it seems to me that when I run this K- I cant really do anything else? Lest I bite into it too- bc how can I truly be systematic (like who is the arbiter on that)- and more importantly why can I claim that they dont think systematically? I finshed my K  but I still see these as big holes in it

 

 

Again, no. If you want to run a disad, you just have to restructure it such that it has multiple impact scenarios which have a tradeoff in probability.

 

 

 

 

a problem that i always struggled with regarding complexity:

take a generic shell - rosenau, saperstein, etc. - the link is Newtonian linearity, the impact is global warfare/enviro stuff, and the alt is some vague call to adopt complexity as a paradigm for more sustainable planning

 

isn't the process of establishing a positivistic causal relationship between linear predictions and war, ironically, a linear prediction? i.e., even if a complex array of factors/catalysts/etc. render status quo models unsustainable and risk xyz extinction claim, predicting that the inevitable result will be "war" seems to reify similar notions of linear relationship

 

tl;dr, a q for k hacks: how can the neg insulate the impact debate from this seeming double turn? i'm guessing that the answer is some fine distinction between newtonian linearity and complex relationships of causality, but it seems like common complexity lit like bernstein would indict both

Adding a policy impact in linear thinking to the framework IS linear thinking. This is why when I first made this a "thing" in debate about 15 years ago that my implication was a question of honesty/integrity. Its appeal was to effectively create a new rule governing behavior in the round... no different than saying the other team loses for stealing my evidence (I am a dinosaur... flashing didn't exist then)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still argue that even if there isn't a briteline, complexity theory would hold that the /more/ systematic you are, the /more/ adequately you've examined a scenario.

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...