Jump to content
HyperRhizome

Old Ideas from an Unreal Troll

Recommended Posts

So I found this thread from 2004 and think some of this stuff can be implemented:

 

Kritiks are illegit

1) Non-unique: Foreign Policies that violate the kritik are passed all the time and we haven’t seen any type of implication yet.
2) Wrong Forum: 
a) Time constraints means the judge, and both teams don’t have enough time to examine the kritik adequately, thus me must decide on the best policy option..
B) The speed of the debate has already shown that the discourse of the kritik isn’t a prior issue in the round…you don’t need to look at the implications before the affirmative impacts and policy.
3) Kritik solves without a negative ballot: Simply reading the kritik raises consciousness. There is no real world solvency or additional solvency by voting on the kritik. In fact by voting for the affirmative policy..you provide that a general argument about the “ Implications” of a policy don’t have to happen. Thus provide for more kritik solvency. 
4) Kritiks don’t have a timeframe and lead to policy paralysis- Kritiks don’t need a timeframe and don’t say if there really is a risk of a impact, so nothing is done.
5) Perm: Rethink plan in the kritik mindset and then do plan.
6) Kritik are double binding and cause the aff to be in a Ivory Tower: Kritiks link to everything topical, so either we have to concede plan solvency or the kritik. Either way the neg wins. Vote right here for abuse.
8) No alternative: the kritik offers a real world alternative and that strengthens UTOPIAN.
9) Ground Skew- kritiks can assume millions of things…and all they have to do is link to the USFG.
10) The negative isn’t defending the SQ or offering a competitive policy- Even if the neg wins the kritik..so what? No plan is enacted and the SQ isn’t defended..vote her for debatiblity…and vague neg strategies….
11) No timeframe for impacts: the affs harms are right now…and the kritik doesn’t even have a timeframe for implications…
12) Implications at most are iffy- they depend on a certain mindset…and then something else happening..what is that something else??
13) Kritiks encourage Nihilism:
a) the kritik asks us to doubt plan for one minute and look at the kritik…doubt in everything is Nihilism
B) If nothing is true everything is allowed- this kind of radical sketching allows for Muder and Crime..which out weigh the kritik
14) Utopia Scenerio:
1) No alternative: the kritik offers a real world alternative and that strengthens UTOPIAN.
2) Utopianism kills to tyranny: Facism and Communism both killed Millions of people…on their pursuite of a “utopian” future. 
15) Framework will always outweigh-
When the neg ran this kritik they completely ignored the framework of the debate without even touching out framework debate or even mentioning it. In the world of policy rounds we need to examine fiat and what happens when we do something. In this instance. it is by rejecting the aff ( insert aff impacts here) will happen. And fiat is always going to be a better world that the SQ b/c of the affirmatives policy option. 





The person who posted this is literally an unreal troll. They were banned as well, but I like this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These arguments are mostly without warrants, and even ones with warrants are pretty bad arguments. If you read this against a competent k team the debate will be over in the cross-x of the 2AC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I found this thread from 2004 and think some of this stuff can be implemented:

 

Kritiks are illegit[/size]

1) Non-unique: Foreign Policies that violate the kritik are passed all the time and we haven’t seen any type of implication yet.[/size]2) Wrong Forum: [/size]a) Time constraints means the judge, and both teams don’t have enough time to examine the kritik adequately, thus me must decide on the best policy option..[/size]

B) The speed of the debate has already shown that the discourse of the kritik isn’t a prior issue in the round…you don’t need to look at the implications before the affirmative impacts and policy.[/size]3) Kritik solves without a negative ballot: Simply reading the kritik raises consciousness. There is no real world solvency or additional solvency by voting on the kritik. In fact by voting for the affirmative policy..you provide that a general argument about the “ Implications” of a policy don’t have to happen. Thus provide for more kritik solvency. [/size]4) Kritiks don’t have a timeframe and lead to policy paralysis- Kritiks don’t need a timeframe and don’t say if there really is a risk of a impact, so nothing is done.[/size]5) Perm: Rethink plan in the kritik mindset and then do plan.[/size]6) Kritik are double binding and cause the aff to be in a Ivory Tower: Kritiks link to everything topical, so either we have to concede plan solvency or the kritik. Either way the neg wins. Vote right here for abuse.[/size]8) No alternative: the kritik offers a real world alternative and that strengthens UTOPIAN.[/size]9) Ground Skew- kritiks can assume millions of things…and all they have to do is link to the USFG.[/size]10) The negative isn’t defending the SQ or offering a competitive policy- Even if the neg wins the kritik..so what? No plan is enacted and the SQ isn’t defended..vote her for debatiblity…and vague neg strategies….[/size]11) No timeframe for impacts: the affs harms are right now…and the kritik doesn’t even have a timeframe for implications…[/size]12) Implications at most are iffy- they depend on a certain mindset…and then something else happening..what is that something else??[/size]13) Kritiks encourage Nihilism:[/size]a) the kritik asks us to doubt plan for one minute and look at the kritik…doubt in everything is Nihilism[/size]

B) If nothing is true everything is allowed- this kind of radical sketching allows for Muder and Crime..which out weigh the kritik[/size]14) Utopia Scenerio:[/size]1) No alternative: the kritik offers a real world alternative and that strengthens UTOPIAN.[/size]2) Utopianism kills to tyranny: Facism and Communism both killed Millions of people…on their pursuite of a “utopian” future. [/size]15) Framework will always outweigh-[/size]When the neg ran this kritik they completely ignored the framework of the debate without even touching out framework debate or even mentioning it. In the world of policy rounds we need to examine fiat and what happens when we do something. In this instance. it is by rejecting the aff ( insert aff impacts here) will happen. And fiat is always going to be a better world that the SQ b/c of the affirmatives policy option. [/size]The person who posted this is literally an unreal troll. They were banned as well, but I like this idea.

What Baudrillbabe said.

 

1) Uniqueness is generated by the alternative because it represents a shift away from status quo policies.

 

2)

a) You often don't have time to fully examine a policy either because the 1AC is usually a plan sentence and a bunch of strung-together quotations.

 

B) The speed of the debate doesn't reflect its importance because we should still use the time we have availible to discuss the most important issues.

 

3) *sarcastic tone* Plan solves without an Affirmative ballot. Simply reading the 1AC raises awareness of how good it is.

 

4) Kritiks don't need a timeframe because they deal with systemic issues and obligations rather than brink and impact issues.

 

5) [K-specific perm answer] + [re-thinking doesn't solve because the Aff will continue to argue their plan the same way the next debate and co-opt objections by "re-thinking"]

 

6) No abuse. They only have to concede the plan or the K if they're not capable of defending them, at which point they deserve to lose.

 

8) You skipped 7 and this isn't even a sentence. Also, the alt isn't utopian because [K-specific reason] and we've read solvency evidence saying it's feasible.

 

9) The Aff can claim any plan and advantages. They should always be able to defend them from every angle because they chose every word of the 1AC. Most K's are recurring anyway.

 

10) Vote Neg to endorse an alternative that represents an opportunity cost to the Aff.

 

11) See #4.

 

12) This is incoherent, but the something else is presumably the mindset being criticized combined with political entities capable of inflicting the impact.

 

13) Misuse of "nihilism."

a) Doubting the plan's justifications is different than thinking everything is meaningless.

 

B) Doubting the plan's justifications is different than arguing "nothing is true, anything is allowed."

 

14)

-1) See #8.

 

-2) See #8 and people died because of the fascism and communism part, not the utopianism part.

 

15) *reads framework*

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for the help! Honestly, since I am just a novice I felt this would be a good idea, but with the help of all of these advanced debaters, I now know that it may not be such a good idea. Thanks! 

(I would have used this at Woodward [the national novice tournament] since I got a bid there, but the amount of feedback itself is enough to stop me from reading this stuff)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. It's not like they're terrible arguments. I can see where they come from. It's just that they're pretty surface level. I think the argument that the Neg can argue from an infinite number of objections is good, and the Aff should probably be able to weigh their advantages.

 

Also, never make your judge flow 15 subpoints of theory. I believe I remember CynicClinic saying that the annoyed judge can be incredibly creative voting you down.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. It's not like they're terrible arguments. I can see where they come from. It's just that they're pretty surface level. I think the argument that the Neg can argue from an infinite number of objections is good, and the Aff should probably be able to weigh their advantages.

 

Also, never make your judge flow 15 subpoints of theory. I believe I remember CynicClinic saying that the annoyed judge can be incredibly creative voting you down.

^  This - especially if your judge actually likes kritiks.

 

Although I can't speak for all judges, you're generally better off reading framework and attempting to responsively engage with the kritik, rather than just reading a wall of theory like this post. I'm much more inclined to buy abuse stories that were demonstrated in the round than potential abuse arguments - at any rate, there's very little downside to making the effort if you can.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 it is by rejecting the aff ( insert aff impacts here) will happen. And fiat is always going to be a better world that the SQ b/c of the affirmatives policy option. 

 

 

 

lol - great answer to the k

Edited by Keagan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×