Double-Turning a K

[TheSnowball 1433]

Hi,

 

I'm trying to think through whether it's fine to link and impact turn a K as a result of the uniqueness argument.

 

For a DA-

1NC: Economy is great, the Affirmative wrecks it, decline causes nuke war.

2AC: Economy is terrible, the Affirmative revives it, economy causes over-consumption that destroys the environment.

 

In that case, the Negative could concede the 2AC and still have an environment DA to the Affirmative.

 

For a K-

1NC: Capitalism now, the Affirmative is capitalist, capitalism causes exploitation, alternative gets rid of capitalism.

2AC: Capitalism now, the Affirmative is anti-capitalist, capitalism is key to space colonization.

 

If the Negative conceded the 2AC and extended the alternative, capitalism gets removed through the alternative and that's bad because it prevents space colonization.

If the Negative conceded the 2AC and did not extend the alternative, capitalism is still in place which is bad because it causes exploitation, but the link turn isn't designed to "solve" capitalism, just prove that the Affirmative doesn't contribute to it - so the Affirmative just has to win that the plan is a good idea and outweighs the "Affirmative hurts capitalism enough to prevent space colonization DA."

 

I'd like to hear people's thoughts and opinions on this.

 

Thanks,

Snowball

[HEYEYEYEYEYEY 31]

a k is the same thing as other policy arguments. so no its not okay

 

The team could say (for example of the cap k): conceed that the plan decreases capitalism and then conceed decreasing capitalism causes wars this is an independent capitalism DA that you vote neg on.

[TheSnowball 1433]

a k is the same thing as other policy arguments. so no its not okay

 

The team could say (for example of the cap k): conceed that the plan decreases capitalism and then conceed decreasing capitalism causes wars this is an independent capitalism DA that you vote neg on.

What if the link turn isn't that the plan decreases capitalism, but that it's a socialist policy?

[HEYEYEYEYEYEY 31]

that's a no link argument not a link turn

[PopcornCzar 24]

There is an important concept that should never be abandoned, and that is that you should never read a link turn and an impact turn.

 

For this, we need to understand what constitutes a ‘link,’ ‘no link,’ and ‘link turn’.  A link establishes competition between the affirmative’s project and the alternative’s project.  No link means that the negative’s links are total garbage and that you could reasonably ‘perm: do the aff and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative’ and win that your aff is probably worth pursuing along with the revolution because the opportunity cost with the alternative is virtually non-existent and your aff’s impact can’t happen in the world of the alternative.  Here’s where things get muddled by some people though: ‘link turn’ means that your aff has so much k mojo that voting aff literally affirms their revolution better than the alt can.  If this is actually the case then you’re probably running a critical affirmative that addresses capitalism and the 2AC should know better than to read ‘Cap Good’ when the 1NC was likely a counter-methodology about addressing agreed upon harms.

 

If this last scenario happens then the neg can say “Cap now, aff destroys cap, cap key to space col, space col key to sustain life – that precludes case solvency – vote neg on presumption”.  If the scenario that you probably intended to convey happens where you actually read ‘no link’ rather than ‘link turn’ then you can argue an impact turn as well in the fashion of “The alternative is non-mutually exclusive/the permutation is net beneficial (explain the specific perm here), but even if they win competition then the alternative still fails because of ‘x’ (space colonization is a pre-requisite to alt solvency).”

 

I also recommend reading ‘alternative fails’ arguments rather than ‘impact turn’ arguments in this position because:

A. Any good cap team is going to have a link to space col, which means that the 2NC can stand up and treat your net benefit to the perm as another link for the block, which is bad news for the 1AR if you didn’t put offense on the alt that they’re now winning a stronger link to, and

B. You need to challenge them to defend something that is extremely unrealistic to actually happen (the alt) in order to win, because winning non-unique links against an aff that doesn’t take a strong stance on cap when cap is the status quo, is not a viable 2NR option.  It is much more difficult to prove that your affirmative uniquely entrenches capitalism and prevents any possible effective revolution than it is to prove that ‘We win the alt, cap is bad, the 2AC read new links’.

Edited August 23, 2017 by PopcornCzar

[TheSnowball 1433]

that's a no link argument not a link turn

If the link is that the plan is capitalist, the link turn is that the plan is socialist.

 

The link would have to be that the plan makes America into more of a capitalist economy for the link turn to be that it makes America into less of a capitalist economy.

[PopcornCzar 24]

Just to demonstrate the point with your example:

One socialist policy doesn't prevent space colonization.

A radical revolution to end capitalism as we know it does prevent space colonization.

Any risk of the Space Col DA is a net benefit to the permutation as a test of competition, not as a judgement towards the ethicality of capitalism.

[TheSnowball 1433]

Just to demonstrate the point with your example:

One socialist policy doesn't prevent space colonization.

A radical revolution to end capitalism as we know it does prevent space colonization.

Any risk of the Space Col DA is a net benefit to the permutation as a test of competition, not as a judgement towards the ethicality of capitalism.

Suppose that they kick the alternative and you can't advocate the perm.

[TheSnowball 1433]

I guess my argument would be if the DA is "capitalism now, plan decreases it, capitalism good," then uniqueness overwhlems the link. Does that make sense?

[PopcornCzar 24]

Suppose that they kick the alternative and you can't advocate the perm.

If they kick the alternative then there's no reason to reject the affirmative, because your aff isn't a revolutionary action that would trigger the space colonization DA you read. We can have a socialist policy and still colonize space.

[PopcornCzar 24]

I guess my argument would be if the DA is "capitalism now, plan decreases it, capitalism good," then uniqueness overwhlems the link. Does that make sense?

Yes, my point is that if uniqueness overwhelms the link then the 2AC's argument against the alt was 'no link' not 'link turn'. The idea of the alt is that it solves back the uniqueness of the status quo; if your alt doesn't do that at the level of capitalism then we can still affirm your policy and not face the consequences of your impact turn.

[TheSnowball 1433]

Thanks to both of you for advice.

Yes, my point is that if uniqueness overwhelms the link then the 2AC's argument against the alt was 'no link' not 'link turn'. The idea of the alt is that it solves back the uniqueness of the status quo; if your alt doesn't do that at the level of capitalism then we can still affirm your policy and not face the consequences of your impact turn.

So you'd say it's completely coherent to have a Capitalism K 2AC that says:

-the plan is in the direction of the alternative

-capitalism is good

-a revolution is bad and would kill people

-permutation do both

[PopcornCzar 24]

Thanks to both of you for advice.

 

So you'd say it's completely coherent to have a Capitalism K 2AC that says:

-the plan is in the direction of the alternative

-capitalism is good

-a revolution is bad and would kill people

-permutation do both

Sure, I think it's important that the plan isn't near the equivalent of the alternative for these purposes, but being in the general direction of the alt should be good for you to make a permutation that tests competition as well as an impact turn to a specific implication of the alt that isn't necessarily an implication of the plan.

[NickDB8 508]

generally i think that, if the block conceded an aff double turn, the aff could raise a huge uniqueness issue -

 

2AC: plan is in direction of alt, cap is good, cap is inevitable

2NC: Concedes both turns and kicks the alt - "they say the plan is socialist and that cap is good, that's a double-turn, vote neg because they read offense against themselves"

1AR: extends that cap is inevitable - "even if the plan is socialist, the aff isn't radical like the alt, the US doesn't suddenly become socialist post-aff, means the contradiction is minimal at worst"

 

 

your aff isn't the alt, so your offense explaining why the alt is bad won't apply to your aff.

[TheSnowball 1433]

generally i think that, if the block conceded an aff double turn, the aff could raise a huge uniqueness issue -

 

2AC: plan is in direction of alt, cap is good, cap is inevitable

2NC: Concedes both turns and kicks the alt - "they say the plan is socialist and that cap is good, that's a double-turn, vote neg because they read offense against themselves"

1AR: extends that cap is inevitable - "even if the plan is socialist, the aff isn't radical like the alt, the US doesn't suddenly become socialist post-aff, means the contradiction is minimal at worst"

 

 

your aff isn't the alt, so your offense explaining why the alt is bad won't apply to your aff.

So would you say for the Negative to successfully concede a double turn, it has to be a "straight double turn" - just the arguments of the double turn and not having any defensive arguments?

[NickDB8 508]

So would you say for the Negative to successfully concede a double turn, it has to be a "straight double turn" - just the arguments of the double turn and not having any defensive arguments?

Probably, but even then, I feel like a solid piece of 1AR defense would just be "cap is inevitable" and you'd have the same debate described above. As long as the aff isn't radical enough to stop X reason why cap is good, I don't think you can double-turn yourself on a K because a. the uniqueness isn't there because the aff isn't radical, and assuming they don't go for the alt, then cap stays in place regardless, and b. the internal link isn't there, because the neg would have to prove how the aff causes whatever your impact turn is to go away, ie, how guaranteeing a right to education (for example) will stop space colonization (also for example).