Jump to content
Nonegfiat

framework perfcon

Recommended Posts

I have a sort of random question that i'll never be able to answer through my own experience because i only read policy affs

 

For a team like LASA MS who routinely goes for framework on the neg against k teams but who also reads a k aff occasionally, how do they answer perfcon arguments?

 

Like i can just see the 1a getting up to cross the 1nc and being like: "so you're making all these arguments about why reading planless affs is bad for debate. My question is why do you do it yourself and why should we take your framework arguments seriously in light of the fact that you contradict them whenever it's convenient?"

 

What would a smart team like LASA MS say to this?

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Debate's a game, we do it to beat K teams."

 

If you concede debate is a game, doesn't that make it harder to win that the aff outweighs fairness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Debate's a game, we do it to beat K teams."

Double bind: either k affs can access fairness because they conceded affs dont need a plan to be compatible with game-framing of debate OR they know theyre being unfair but they dont care so you should assign zero weight to their fairness args

 

Theres no reason you can't beat a k team with a policy aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you concede debate is a game, doesn't that make it harder to win that the aff outweighs fairness?

I thought this was about an aff team answering LASA when they were reading framework. My b.

 

Double bind: either k affs can access fairness because they conceded affs dont need a plan to be compatible with game-framing of debate OR they know theyre being unfair but they dont care so you should assign zero weight to their fairness args

 

Theres no reason you can't beat a k team with a policy aff.

Perms in K v K debates are too strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perms in K v K debates are too strong.

Even more reason they should stick to reading policy affs if they care about fairness.

 

If you're saying that as a justification for reading fw, as in its our only offense that wont lose to the perm, then congrats on straight turning yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was about an aff team answering LASA when they were reading framework. My b.

 

Nah you were right. The scenario is a team who sometimes reads k affs going for fw, not vice versa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more reason they should stick to reading policy affs if they care about fairness.

 

If you're saying that as a justification for reading fw, as in its our only offense that wont lose to the perm, then congrats on straight turning yourself

Wanting to win =/= caring about fairness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting to win =/= caring about fairness

Exactly. And if debate is a game and fairness is prereq to the game, yet you put winning before fairness when you're on the aff against k teams, you have no reason that we shouldn't be able to do that against you. At least not one that i would be persuaded by if i were judging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i can just see the 1a getting up to cross the 1nc and being like: "so you're making all these arguments about why reading planless affs is bad for debate. My question is why do you do it yourself and why should we take your framework arguments seriously in light of the fact that you contradict them whenever it's convenient?"

 

this is silly

it justifies negs being like, "ezra crushed some random team that read grand bargain, thus lasa doesn't sincerely believe in the grand bargain being good, don't take them seriously and presumption"

Edited by jswegthefuture
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think another cool argument would be like "Debate is a unique space that allows us to explore how we constitute our world view by advocating things we wouldn't usually agree with and perf conning across multiple rounds (as opposed to in a single where that would hurt fairness) allows us to deconstruct binaries that we have internalized over the course of our lives."

Edited by SirAravis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is silly

it justifies negs being like, "ezra crushed some random team that read grand bargain, thus lasa doesn't sincerely believe in the grand bargain being good, don't take them seriously and presumption"

Not really. Those arguments function on different levels.

 

SSD means we're always going to be both affirming and negating the topic and everyone accepts that. It's a given in the activity and it doesnt implicate broader questions beyond te resolution.

 

Different however is contradicting your own arguments about what debate should be. When it comes to broader claims about the activity itself, i think it makes sense to hold people to what they're saying. Especially since no one forces them to read a k aff-- they choose to.

 

Now, obviously teams read different roles of the ballot, for example, depending on the situation and will often contradict themselves between those, which is why i think rob args are bs. Theyre arbitrary and self serving.

 

Even so, dont you think its stupid to be told by a team that you're undermining the competitive integrity of debate by reading a k aff when they do it whenever it suits them?

 

What if you were answering condo bad against a team that routinely runs like 4 counterplans? Wouldnt you want to call them out for undermining their own fairness claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Those arguments function on different levels.

 

SSD means we're always going to be both affirming and negating the topic and everyone accepts that. It's a given in the activity and it doesnt implicate broader questions beyond te resolution.

 

Different however is contradicting your own arguments about what debate should be. When it comes to broader claims about the activity itself, i think it makes sense to hold people to what they're saying. Especially since no one forces them to read a k aff-- they choose to.

 

Now, obviously teams read different roles of the ballot, for example, depending on the situation and will often contradict themselves between those, which is why i think rob args are bs. Theyre arbitrary and self serving.

 

Even so, dont you think its stupid to be told by a team that you're undermining the competitive integrity of debate by reading a k aff when they do it whenever it suits them?

 

What if you were answering condo bad against a team that routinely runs like 4 counterplans? Wouldnt you want to call them out for undermining their own fairness claims?

this a is silly arg that people don't make often, there's no way that things you do out of round can be verified nor are they particularly persuasive - it justifies the 'they were mean one debate so reject them' rhetoric. not only that, but your argument justifies saying "don't evaluate the T debate" against you because you read T-QPQ while reading an aff that wasn't a QPQ...???? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this a is silly arg that people don't make often, there's no way that things you do out of round can be verified nor are they particularly persuasive - it justifies the 'they were mean one debate so reject them' rhetoric. not only that, but your argument justifies saying "don't evaluate the T debate" against you because you read T-QPQ while reading an aff that wasn't a QPQ...???? 

alright yeah, that is pretty stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ezra crushed some random team that read grand bargain, thus lasa doesn't sincerely believe in the grand bargain being good, don't take them seriously and presumption"

Also mason's a bit of a fascist which is why he reads schmitt

 

vote down fascists

 

The arg is super reductive and makes no sense.

Edited by AQuackDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this a is silly arg that people don't make often, there's no way that things you do out of round can be verified nor are they particularly persuasive - it justifies the 'they were mean one debate so reject them' rhetoric. not only that, but your argument justifies saying "don't evaluate the T debate" against you because you read T-QPQ while reading an aff that wasn't a QPQ...???? 

 

 

funny thing is this comment was actually feedback my partner and I got once... except we do read a qpq aff... so it was really a fantastic decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i got it.

Sorry I wasn't trying to be rude or anything, love you Ben

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also Mason is low-key a total fascist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that critiques often function both in the critical and policy world, in addition to claiming moral type arguments.

 

The other implications of the K can still kick in even if you "win" this argument--at least if they make those arguments.

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

×