Jump to content
AmAsKh

Which CP could go with this Kritik

Recommended Posts

Hello All, 

 

I'm planning to run the Linguistic Imperialism Kritik from UMich this year, and was wondering whether you could think of any CPs that are compatible with this kritik. The kritik can be found here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx1bWljaGRlYmF0ZXxneDo3Mjk3NGViNTkwMjQxOWQy

 

If not, can anybody think of a good kritik-cp combination that works for this year? (I know that cap with an alt of historical materialism and any cp can be run, but I don't particularly like cap).

 

Thanks, 

AmAsKh

Edited by AmAsKh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fam, not to hate, but this K is absolute garbage. The link wall is pretty terrible, and it is better ran as a DA because the alt is pretty much "we're just not cede to the affs theory of language" and could MAYBE be a decent on case answer to a baudrillard aff. everything else is like a really sketchy link argument, and it would be easier to win reading Marx. 

 

Typically, there is no "good K-CP combo" because the two are typically, by nature, antithetical to each other. The cp will almost always link to the kritik, which means they will ultimately never reinforce each other. 

 

edit: I am wrong, I thought you meant the linguistic indeterminancy k. I haven't looked at this file, disregard what I said. 

Edited by TheZodiacKiller
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Typically, there is no "good K-CP combo" because the two are typically, by nature, antithetical to each other. The cp will almost always link to the kritik, which means they will ultimately never reinforce each other. 

 

Heg Good K + Increase Targeted Killing Funding Counterplan :)

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fam, not to hate, but this K is absolute garbage. The link wall is pretty terrible, and it is better ran as a DA because the alt is pretty much "we're just not cede to the affs theory of language" and could MAYBE be a decent on case answer to a baudrillard aff. everything else is like a really sketchy link argument, and it would be easier to win reading Marx. 

 

Typically, there is no "good K-CP combo" because the two are typically, by nature, antithetical to each other. The cp will almost always link to the kritik, which means they will ultimately never reinforce each other. 

 

edit: I am wrong, I thought you meant the linguistic indeterminancy k. I haven't looked at this file, disregard what I said.

 

Sometimes the K can function like a disad, I've heard of anarchy+statism and demilitarization+militarism but the only one that I have used to win was the white terror pic from I believe HSS for surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heg Good K + Increase Targeted Killing Funding Counterplan :)

Heg good isn't a K. A K is a criticism. Saying heg good isn't criticizing the system, it's praising it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, there is no "good K-CP combo" because the two are typically, by nature, antithetical to each other. The cp will almost always link to the kritik, which means they will ultimately never reinforce each other. 

 

Does this mean that I can't run a CP and a K in the same debate? Or can both be conditional with the condition of dropping one at the end of the debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heg good isn't a K. A K is a criticism. Saying heg good isn't criticizing the system, it's praising it.

 

you can critique the AFF for its opposition to the system?

yes many k's are anti-system, but that obvi doesn't dictate the form of the k writ large - i.e., for every k that critiques fascism, you could also craft a criticism of criticisms of fascism - the content of the K can be bidirectional, even within the same argument form

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can critique the AFF for its opposition to the system?

yes many k's are anti-system, but that obvi doesn't dictate the form of the k writ large - i.e., for every k that critiques fascism, you could also craft a criticism of criticisms of fascism - the content of the K can be bidirectional, even within the same argument form

I agreee, but the reason most CPs link to most Ks is that most Ks are Ks of the system and most CPs use the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counter plans can destroy da system too

 

Edit- or atleast avoid it to function as a net benny

Edited by Raj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counter plans can destroy da system too

Edit- or atleast avoid it to function as a net benny

I mean, at that point the CP is more of a K. The only difference being having a policy text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is things like anarchy and demilitarization with fairly policy texts.

 

The structure of a normal k resembles that of a uniqueness counterplan.

Edited by Raj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is things like anarchy and demilitarization with fairly policy texts.

The structure of a normal k resembles that of a uniqueness counterplan.

"The alternative is to demilitarize the state."

 

"The United States federal government should demilitarize its policy actions."

 

Seems similar to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are but the first observable key difference is that the alt doesn't directly state that the USFG is doing the action.

 

The more substantial one is that the counterplan (presumably with the state as the actor) cannot actually solve all of whatever the problem is- it just doesn't link to the k that does.

 

Demilitarizing the state might be more effective as a whole than just the state's application of the cp to its policy.

 

That is why kritiks function in the round in a similar manner as uniqueness cps.

 

One could also use the links of kritiks like disease reps as net benefits when it comes to these types of CPs. Another example would be reading Pan and then advocating an international organization cp which solves poverty thru removing structural adjustment. But I do believe that these CPs do appear to look like kritiks- like the real offense with anarchy is probably like state bad and with demilitarization like threat con and militarism bad, etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, 

 

I'm planning to run the Linguistic Imperialism Kritik from UMich this year, and was wondering whether you could think of any CPs that are compatible with this kritik. The kritik can be found here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx1bWljaGRlYmF0ZXxneDo3Mjk3NGViNTkwMjQxOWQy

 

If not, can anybody think of a good kritik-cp combination that works for this year? (I know that cap with an alt of historical materialism and any cp can be run, but I don't particularly like cap).

 

Thanks, 

AmAsKh

I wouldn't recommend reading a K with a CP. Most of the time you'll get yourself into perf con trouble, and reading two or more conditional advocacies isn't popular with some judges. 

 

also, I think this K is quite poor; it's a criticism of the "hegemony of English" in diplomacy. I don't see how the neg avoids this, given that you read the arg in english. 

 

 

They are but the first observable key difference is that the alt doesn't directly state that the USFG is doing the action.

 

The more substantial one is that the counterplan (presumably with the state as the actor) cannot actually solve all of whatever the problem is- it just doesn't link to the k that does.

 

Demilitarizing the state might be more effective as a whole than just the state's application of the cp to its policy.

 

That is why kritiks function in the round in a similar manner as uniqueness cps.

 

One could also use the links of kritiks like disease reps as net benefits when it comes to these types of CPs. Another example would be reading Pan and then advocating an international organization cp which solves poverty thru removing structural adjustment. But I do believe that these CPs do appear to look like kritiks- like the real offense with anarchy is probably like state bad and with demilitarization like threat con and militarism bad, etc.

Even if it's possible, that strategy is pointless. The K will solve all all of the net-benefits to the counterplan, and both will link to nearly all of the same offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, there is no "good K-CP combo" because the two are typically, by nature, antithetical to each other. The cp will almost always link to the kritik, which means they will ultimately never reinforce each other. 

 

I guess that's where the Multiple Worlds Theory could come in to play, if you're into that kind of thing (I'm not but some are).

 

 

"The alternative is to demilitarize the state."

 

"The United States federal government should demilitarize its policy actions."

 

Seems similar to me.

 

Of course, you could always do something like that too, but if you lose on one you're likely to lose on the other as well.

 

Ks and CPs are dangerous when run together, tread carefully.

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...