Jump to content
Jullianv1

What are some responses to k affs?

Recommended Posts

Framework: You argue that they should defend topical action which has a whole host of fairness and education impacts

Cap K: Has links to ANYTHING including K affs

 

That is my default strat vs k affs. You can run a number of different things (depending on the case), including other kritiks like anthro and wilderson, but cap and fw is my go-to because they're both pretty straightforward args and generic enough to use in almost any case

 

of course, the commonality of this strat means that k teams are more prepared to answer it, which is a legitimate downside, but i always opt for running what I'm more prepared to explain as opposed to what I think they're less prepared to answer

 

edit: forgot to answer the second part of your question. Psycho is super broad and I've never seen it in a k aff, so I don't know what to recommend. Sorry friend. But FW always links (as long as they don't read a plan)

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two ways to answer psychoanalysis. The first is to spend 8-10 years studying the specific field of philosophy that their evidence is from, and then articulate an expert opinion on the misunderstandings that underlie their arguments. The second is to realize that high school debaters don't and will never truly understand what they're saying anyway, such that they are probably wrong.

 

Realistically, you just need to have answers to common psychoanalysis claims and argue framework and a K that you like really well.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For psycho, +1 to cap links to everything. If they read a 1AC and it doesn't link to cap, it's not a 1AC. Other than that, just straight turns on the K. There's some pretty good evidence out there about how Lacanian Psychoanalysis is honestly fucking stupid. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the best answer is DnG, but if you aren't familiar with them don't try it. Best bet is probably cap (creates the issues they analyze probably) and some sort of method argument about how they have the worst possible way of analyzing even if they were right. Stuff like genealogy bad, microfascism bad, etc. I feel like K affs have a much easier time brushing off framework than substantive attacks on their method or claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two ways to answer psychoanalysis. The first is to spend 8-10 years studying the specific field of philosophy that their evidence is from, and then articulate an expert opinion on the misunderstandings that underlie their arguments. The second is to realize that high school debaters don't and will never truly understand what they're saying anyway, such that they are probably wrong.

 

Realistically, you just need to have answers to common psychoanalysis claims and argue framework and a K that you like really well.

Can you explain what Psychoanalysis is? I heard its like we have underlying subconscious influences that mean we can never actualy do anything? But, I also remember a psychology professor dismissing it as "false." I have no idea what is is exaxtly, espeically in terms of engagment with china

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the best answer is DnG, but if you aren't familiar with them don't try it. Best bet is probably cap (creates the issues they analyze probably) and some sort of method argument about how they have the worst possible way of analyzing even if they were right. Stuff like genealogy bad, microfascism bad, etc. I feel like K affs have a much easier time brushing off framework than substantive attacks on their method or claims.

Someone told me that there was a Deluze psycho K....is that a thing- or am i mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain what Psychoanalysis is? I heard its like we have underlying subconscious influences that mean we can never actualy do anything? But, I also remember a psychology professor dismissing it as "false." I have no idea what is is exaxtly, espeically in terms of engagment with china

https://www.cross-x.com/topic/26423-lacan-explanation/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework: You argue that they should defend topical action which has a whole host of fairness and education impacts

Cap K: Has links to ANYTHING including K affs

 

That is my default strat vs k affs. You can run a number of different things (depending on the case), including other kritiks like anthro and wilderson, but cap and fw is my go-to because they're both pretty straightforward args and generic enough to use in almost any case

 

of course, the commonality of this strat means that k teams are more prepared to answer it, which is a legitimate downside, but i always opt for running what I'm more prepared to explain as opposed to what I think they're less prepared to answer

 

edit: forgot to answer the second part of your question. Psycho is super broad and I've never seen it in a k aff, so I don't know what to recommend. Sorry friend. But FW always links (as long as they don't read a plan)

What is "fw"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is "fw"

Abbreviation for Framework. Basically like Topicality, but instead of "they don't follow the resolution" it's "they don't follow the structure/mode of debate best for education/fairness"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really helped me understand it, thanks! The Zizek argument seems to be a functional turn to a generic psycho k right? He says we shouldnt revolt, but rather give in

Anytime. And kind of, Zizek's less about "giving in" and more embracing the politics of the Lack. I don't pretend to be an expert on psycho but I do read a lot of Zizek, gotta get that subversive *sniff* ideology in there. I would honestly use Zizek less as a turn and more as a link into a counter K, namely Cap.

Like we always say, cap links into e v e r y t h i n g

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime. And kind of, Zizek's less about "giving in" and more embracing the politics of the Lack. I don't pretend to be an expert on psycho but I do read a lot of Zizek, gotta get that subversive *sniff* ideology in there. I would honestly use Zizek less as a turn and more as a link into a counter K, namely Cap.

Like we always say, cap links into e v e r y t h i n g

Is there a non-lacantian pyscho k? And if I use zizke- do I leave out his psycho arguments and focus in on his cap arguments? Im just a tad confused on how pyscho specfiicsly links into cap...wouldnt they just make a root cause turn to cap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some people like to read framework, but that is like "this is my opinion on framework." I would read T - USFG, which is that the affirmative should defend USFG action. Against psychoanalysis you basically read what you would against the K, like its based on Freud's assumptions, undisprovable, can't create any change, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychoanalysis doesn't scale up to explain international conflicts, it's bunk science, and there are pretty good links to queer theory, fem, coloniality, and general k's of liberalism. The most common psychoanalysis argument is that people are trapped in an endless cycle wherein they try to overcome a master-signifier, (usually the law, but can be capitalism, or any structure they attempt to critique) which overlooks investments in enjoyment that lock in the status quo, namely that one's ego is constructed around resistance to that power structure, and genuinely defeating that structure would require a defeat of the self which cannot occur. However, this understands society as always ruled by a master-signifier, always having a power structure that controls or subordinates you which naturalizes the existence of inequality, teaches people to be submissive through over-investment (like the Zizek arg), etc. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a non-lacantian pyscho k?

No, while they may use different authors in the end all Psychoanalysis is based on Lacanian politics. I'd highly recommend Stavrakakis' Lacan and the Political, or at least excerpts. It does a really good job of explaining how our politics is based on Lacanian conceptions of identity and whatnot. 

And if I use zizke- do I leave out his psycho arguments and focus in on his cap arguments? Im just a tad confused on how pyscho specfiicsly links into cap...wouldnt they just make a root cause turn to cap?

Zizek is a single issue author, all his critiques center around Cap one way or another. He references Lacan a lot in his ideas of what he calls the "carnivalesque reversal of roles" where he says that by struggling against *Cap, NeoLib, Imperialism, etc.* we feed those same systems because our critique draws it's power from the power of that system, therefore it still relies on that system. PM me, I have a file I can send you tomorrow if you want.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychoanalysis doesn't scale up to explain international conflicts, it's bunk science, and there are pretty good links to queer theory, fem, coloniality, and general k's of liberalism. The most common psychoanalysis argument is that people are trapped in an endless cycle wherein they try to overcome a master-signifier, (usually the law, but can be capitalism, or any structure they attempt to critique) which overlooks investments in enjoyment that lock in the status quo, namely that one's ego is constructed around resistance to that power structure, and genuinely defeating that structure would require a defeat of the self which cannot occur. However, this understands society as always ruled by a master-signifier, always having a power structure that controls or subordinates you which naturalizes the existence of inequality, teaches people to be submissive through over-investment (like the Zizek arg), etc.

 

This is a much better explanation of the Zizek arg thanks Kyler

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the alt is what then exactly?

Psychoanalysis doesn't scale up to explain international conflicts, it's bunk science, and there are pretty good links to queer theory, fem, coloniality, and general k's of liberalism. The most common psychoanalysis argument is that people are trapped in an endless cycle wherein they try to overcome a master-signifier, (usually the law, but can be capitalism, or any structure they attempt to critique) which overlooks investments in enjoyment that lock in the status quo, namely that one's ego is constructed around resistance to that power structure, and genuinely defeating that structure would require a defeat of the self which cannot occur. However, this understands society as always ruled by a master-signifier, always having a power structure that controls or subordinates you which naturalizes the existence of inequality, teaches people to be submissive through over-investment (like the Zizek arg), etc. 

 

Can you elaborate on this- I think its clicking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the alt is what then exactly?

Haha... It's, umm... *grabs ballot and runs away*

Kidding. My understanding is that the alt is basically to embrace a politics of the Lack, where we dwell in the slippages of our own psyches to deconstruct our reality and the pain/trauma of the Real.  

 

 

Can you elaborate on this- I think its clicking

Sure. the example Zizek gives is really good, I think. This is from my file:

Ideological transgression is a continuation of the existing order—the power of the protest structurally depends upon the continued authority of the system.  The critique functions as a carnivalesque reversal of authority—we make a gesture of non-compliance that posits us as the “real” masters of fate.

 

Zizek 95 (Slavoj,  International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, president of the Society for Theoretical Psychoanalysis, LAW AND THE POSTMODERN MIND: SUPEREGO BY DEFAULT, Cardozo Law Review, 1995, 16 Cardozo L. Rev. 925)

 

In the traditional patriarchal society, the inherent transgression of the law assumes the form of a carnivalesque reversal of authority: the king becomes a beggar, madness poses as wisdom, etc. A custom practiced in the villages of northern Greece until the middle of our century exemplifies this reversal. n5 One day a year was set aside for women to take over. Men had to stay at home and look after children while women gathered in the local inn, drank to excess, and organized mock trials of men. What breaks out in this carnevalesque suspension of the ruling patriarchal law is the fantasy of feminine power. Lacan draws attention to the fact that, in everyday French, one of the designations for the wife is la bourgeoise n6 - the one who, beneath the semblance of male domination, actually pulls the strings. This, however, can in no way be reduced to a version of the standard male chauvinist wisecrack that patriarchal domination is not so bad for women after all since, at least in the close circle of the family, they run the show. The problem runs deeper; one of the consequences of the fact that the master is always an impostor is the duplication of the master - the agency of the master is always perceived as a semblance concealing another, "true" master. Suffice it to recall the well-known anecdote quoted by Theodore Adorno in Minima Moralia, about a wife who apparently subordinates to her husband and, when they are about to leave the party, obediently holds his coat, all the while exchanging behind his back ironic patronizing glances with the fellow guests to communicate the message, "poor weakling, let him think he is the master!" In this opposition of semblance and actual power men are impostors, condemned to performing empty symbolic gestures while the actual responsibility falls to women. However, the point not to be missed here is that this specter of woman's power structurally depends on the male domination: it remains its shadowy double, its retroactive effect, and as such its inherent moment

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychoanalysis doesn't scale up to explain international conflicts, it's bunk science, and there are pretty good links to queer theory, fem, coloniality, and general k's of liberalism. The most common psychoanalysis argument is that people are trapped in an endless cycle wherein they try to overcome a master-signifier, (usually the law, but can be capitalism, or any structure they attempt to critique) which overlooks investments in enjoyment that lock in the status quo, namely that one's ego is constructed around resistance to that power structure, and genuinely defeating that structure would require a defeat of the self which cannot occur. However, this understands society as always ruled by a master-signifier, always having a power structure that controls or subordinates you which naturalizes the existence of inequality, teaches people to be submissive through over-investment (like the Zizek arg), etc. 

What about the generic response that it is a starting point and is crucial for policy makers

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...