Jump to content
imasterdebatetobaudrillard

Does the K need to solve the disad

Recommended Posts

It most likely does I always think to someone running a Baudrillard K and then running a DA with the impact being extinction. I don't think it technically has to solve the DA since most Ks reject the aff meaning you probably can solve the DA back anyway, but I do think your off case can't contradict with one another especially with the example I gave Other than that you probably won't need to prove you solve the DA since you aren't going for both in the 2NR, but if you can solve the DA then you could go K DA case in the 2NR and fuck over someone's day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, however it should not contradict it. ie, don't read neolib and a spending DA. Even if you do, just say you're defending multiple worlds and testing the aff from multiple directions, but you'll only go for one of the contradictory positions.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Alright so the order is gonna be 2 off: containment and pan"

I think you could actually justify that.

Pan: the Aff positions China as an innately violent hostile other when it's really threat construction that made it militarized.

Containment: but now that they've militarized, engaging them only makes it worse because it evokes the expansionist mentality created in securitization.

 

In any case, you can defend multiple worlds.

 

I do think that contradictions hurt the ethos of the debater, though, because it makes the arguments sound ingenuine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could actually justify that.

Pan: the Aff positions China as an innately violent hostile other when it's really threat construction that made it militarized.

Containment: but now that they've militarized, engaging them only makes it worse because it evokes the expansionist mentality created in securitization.

 

In any case, you can defend multiple worlds.

 

I do think that contradictions hurt the ethos of the debater, though, because it makes the arguments sound ingenuine.

 

If you ran that against me I would say that the disad is a performative contradiction and bad discourse, turns the disad. Because even if the disad seeks to deal with the consequences of securitzation that's already happened, you're still engaging in the threat rhetoric that creates the securitization in the first place, which is the whole point of the kritik. If nothing else, your explanation of the disad provides an easy way for the aff to perm and link out of pan

 

But yeah, multiple worlds is always an option

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ran that against me I would say that the disad is a performative contradiction and bad discourse, turns the disad. Because even if the disad seeks to deal with the consequences of securitzation that's already happened, you're still engaging in the threat rhetoric that creates the securitization in the first place, which is the whole point of the kritik. If nothing else, your explanation of the disad provides an easy way for the aff to perm and link out of pan

 

But yeah, multiple worlds is always an option

I disagree with the blanket term of threat rhetoric. The Pan K doesn't say China's not dangerous.

Pan says that mutual securitization catalyzed mutual militarization, where the U.S. and China can't back down because they'd risk destruction by the other. The containment DA is just enforcing the "don't back down" part while the K questions the Affirmative's positioning of China as much in terms of knowledge production as in discourse/strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the blanket term of threat rhetoric. The Pan K doesn't say China's not dangerous.

Pan says that mutual securitization catalyzed mutual militarization, where the U.S. and China can't back down because they'd risk destruction by the other. The containment DA is just enforcing the "don't back down" part while the K questions the Affirmative's positioning of China as much in terms of knowledge production as in discourse/strategy.

How can the disad escape the problematic positioning of china (in a way that doesn't concede the perm)?

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the disad escape the problematic positioning of china (in a way that doesn't concede the perm)?

Securitization ever since Orientalism transformed China from a potential threat into a real one. The Aff justifies the logic that made that happen. Containment would say that now that China is a real threat, it needs to be contained.

Pan's alternative isn't very political. It's about self-watching and the way we relate to China.

So it's not a contradiction to say "the Affirmative's notion that China is /always necessarily/ violent is bad and wrong" but also that "now that China is a /current real/ threat, the Aff's political/military strategy is insufficient."

It doesn't mean you concede the perm because our relation to China at a quasi-ontological level and our actual policy actions remain distinct as well as because positing China as a threat /by nature/ or /by circumstance/ are two very different things.

If you don't agree with that, feel free to not argue that way. I just think the containment DA is more nuanced than "China bad" and that the Pan K is more nuanced than "China good."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Securitization ever since Orientalism transformed China from a potential threat into a real one. The Aff justifies the logic that made that happen. Containment would say that now that China is a real threat, it needs to be contained.

Pan's alternative isn't very political. It's about self-watching and the way we relate to China.

So it's not a contradiction to say "the Affirmative's notion that China is /always necessarily/ violent is bad and wrong" but also that "now that China is a /current real/ threat, the Aff's political/military strategy is insufficient."

It doesn't mean you concede the perm because our relation to China at a quasi-ontological level and our actual policy actions remain distinct as well as because positing China as a threat /by nature/ or /by circumstance/ are two very different things.

If you don't agree with that, feel free to not argue that way. I just think the containment DA is more nuanced than "China bad" and that the Pan K is more nuanced than "China good."

 

That all makes sense. I agree with the distinction you make between what the k criticizes and what the disad does, but I just don't see how you can justify the disad that way without also justifying the aff. Becuase what's stopping the aff from saying they posit china as a threat by circumstance the same way the disad does? But that's alright, at the end of the day, you clearly have a deeper understanding of pan than I do, and I definitely will not be running that strat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all makes sense. I agree with the distinction you make between what the k criticizes and what the disad does, but I just don't see how you can justify the disad that way without also justifying the aff. Becuase what's stopping the aff from saying they posit china as a threat by circumstance the same way the disad does? But that's alright, at the end of the day, you clearly have a deeper understanding of pan than I do, and I definitely will not be running that strat

Thanks. And I honestly think that people are running Pan and Security Ks at a really shallow level. "Look! Look! Their ev says 'the threat of China' in an unhighlighted part of the card! Vote Neg!" is not really a link into the K. It's hard to describe a genuine link because discourse and policy are most prominent.

Honestly the DA could link to the K if it described China as naturally oppositional and violent. I'm just saying there's a way to run the two together as long as the DA describes China as a circumstantial threat and the link arguments are grounded in strong evidence about how the Affirmative's economic, diplomatic, political, and military /justifications/ promote the image of China as innately violent and/or objectively knowable and static.

People seem to think Pan is the "China Security K," but in my opinion it's more of the "China Orientalism K" with threat construction as a by-product. From there, I draw the distinction between containment as a response to real threats and positivism as a link to the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain cede the political to me

it's a common framework argument against k affs which says that the aff's refusal to advocate political action in response to their harms is bad because political structures have the power to create concrete change and refusal to engage them allows other (bad) people to take control of those structures instead. Think of how trump won the election. There were probably a lot of people who knew trump was really really bad but didnt vote because they didn't want to vote for clinton because "shes not a true liberal" or they didn't want to take part in the political process because "it's a farce" or whatever. These people could have stopped trump but they didn't. And not only did they not stop trump, their nonpolitical resistance accomplished nothing. The argument is that regardless of how you feel about political structures, they exist and they are the way to create change. You can either settle for the lesser of two evils and actually solve something or make an ideological stand and hand over that ability to someone with a different agenda.

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain cede the political to me

 

it's a common framework argument against k affs which says that the aff's refusal to advocate political action in response to their harms is bad because political structures have the power to create concrete change and refusal to engage them allows other (bad) people to take control of those structures instead. Think of how trump won the election. There were probably a lot of people who knew trump was really really bad but didnt vote because they didn't want to vote for clinton because "shes not a true liberal" or they didn't want to take part in the political process because "it's a farce" or whatever. These people could have stopped trump but they didn't. And not only did they not stop trump, their nonpolitical resistance accomplished nothing. The argument is that regardless of how you feel about political structures, they exist and they are the way to create change. You can either settle for the lesser of two evils and actually solve something or make an ideological stand and hand over that ability to someone with a different agenda.

Furthermore, it's probably nonUQ because of Trump, NAFTA, the fact that all 3 branches of the US government are controlled by the right wing(or soon will be), etc. The political has already been ceded.

Edited by NickDB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it's probably nonUQ because of Trump, NAFTA, the fact that all 3 branches of the US government are controlled by the right wing(or soon will be), etc. The political has already been ceded.

i dont know about that. the cedes the political argument is basically a kritik-- it indicts the mindset of the aff rather than the specific effects of the advocacy. Because even if there was "uniqueness" to the argument, no one's going to say that the advocacy of the aff is the specific tipping point which hands over the government to the right. It's about the harms of endorsing a mindset which refuses to engage existing institutions. Plus it's never too late to take back the political, and the fact that the government is right wing means political engagement is more necessary now than ever before. The mindset of the aff reentrenches right wing political dominance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know about that. the cedes the political argument is basically a kritik-- it indicts the mindset of the aff rather than the specific effects of the advocacy. Because even if there was "uniqueness" to the argument, no one's going to say that the advocacy of the aff is the specific tipping point which hands over the government to the right. It's about the harms of endorsing a mindset which refuses to engage existing institutions. Plus it's never too late to take back the political, and the fact that the government is right wing means political engagement is more necessary now than ever before. The mindset of the aff reentrenches right wing political dominance

I've always considered it an impact turn to the alt. Assuming you're referring to the Boggs evidence, Boggs highlights that when we cede the political, the right wing takes control and causes bad things to happen. It's already happened, just scroll through the impacts section of your old elections DA. The aff can't check back the uniqueness of this without an intrinsic perm. Even if the alt cedes the political, it's already been ceded. 

 

In the real world, engaging institutions, especially at this time, is probably good, thus done best through the intrinsic perm. But in the debate world, where theory against those perms exist, the neg's best bet is to nonUQ it and maybe go for a link turn/no link argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always considered it an impact turn to the alt. Assuming you're referring to the Boggs evidence, Boggs highlights that when we cede the political, the right wing takes control and causes bad things to happen. It's already happened, just scroll through the impacts section of your old elections DA. The aff can't check back the uniqueness of this without an intrinsic perm. Even if the alt cedes the political, it's already been ceded. 

 

In the real world, engaging institutions, especially at this time, is probably good, thus done best through the intrinsic perm. But in the debate world, where theory against those perms exist, the neg's best bet is to nonUQ it and maybe go for a link turn/no link argument.

alright i see what youre saying

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...