Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

The judge isn't fiating the alternative, but refusing to fiat the Affirmative.



So if the status quo links to the K, why vote negative? Why read an alternative at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the status quo links to the K, why vote negative? Why read an alternative at all?

Link: identify a set of assumptions.

Impact: those are super bad.

Alternative: here's a different, better set of assumptions.

 

It still "generates uniqueness" because it has some way to solve the offense created by the link/impact.

 

By the way, this is fun and interesting and I like having this kind of conversation especially with someone like you who's willing and able to rigorously criticize me.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this interpretation of Kritiks better than the interpretation that says Kritiks use fiat?

Also, if Kritiks are just pointing out incorrect assumptions and providing better ones, then why isn't it a voting issue if I point out that my opponents' analysis of the economy relies on an incorrect assumption, and then provide a better one?

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this interpretation of Kritiks better than the interpretation that says Kritiks use fiat?

I don't think alternatives should be an immediate, durable public counterplan because that's unfair and not the point of the K. I also think it's a more logical model of opportunity cost that stems from a predictable point of comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, there are really two different debates here. I was not asking about the "mass movement" interpretation. I meant, why use this framing in which judges don't vote for the negative's alternative but instead simply abstain from voting for the affirmative in the presence of assumptions which are worse than the alternative? To me, it comes across as just a really convoluted way of expressing the same exact idea while trying to avoid the word "fiat".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, there are really two different debates here. I was not asking about the "mass movement" interpretation. I meant, why use this framing in which judges don't vote for the negative's alternative but instead simply abstain from voting for the affirmative in the presence of assumptions which are worse than the alternative? To me, it comes across as just a really convoluted way of expressing the same exact idea while trying to avoid the word "fiat".

The Negative doesn't have a "should not." The resolution just says "yes or no: X should happen."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the least sarcastic way possible, does that mean you think Counterplans don't utilize fiat either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the least sarcastic way possible, does that mean you think Counterplans don't utilize fiat either?

Right. I think circumvention is valid against CPs, they don't have to be immediate or certain, and, ultimately, I think everything is an opportunity cost DA.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that everything is ultimately an opportunity cost DA, but I choose to assign the label "fiat" to endorsing one particular opportunity out of all the ones available. I'm just going to stop arguing now, because I feel like we're agreed on as much as we can. Thanks for the responses, it's nice to have an excuse to refresh my understanding of these ideas.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that everything is ultimately an opportunity cost DA, but I choose to assign the label "fiat" to endorsing one particular opportunity out of all the ones available. I'm just going to stop arguing now, because I feel like we're agreed on as much as we can. Thanks for the responses, it's nice to have an excuse to refresh my understanding of these ideas.

Yeah, fun discussion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so basically a policy argument is one that has to do with the topic and a kritik is one that is random and doesn't have to do with the aff?

 

maybe im misunderstanding something but at least from what i understand now kritiks seem very dumb and un-educational given that they aren't about the topic

 

also how does an alt work, do you just fiat no capitalism?

1- policy arguments are focused around the direct consequential effects of policy action. Critiques focus on underlying assumptions, whether directly political (like the cap k being directly related to the functional perpetuation of capitalism via the aff), epistemological (how we interpret the world), ontological (sort of defining what we are), and some other -ologies that you don't really need to get into.

 

2- Bad critique debates are uneducational, so are bad policy debates. Good neg critiques deeply interact with the affirmative case through links to the plan mechanism, links to impacts and advantage areas, and links to how the aff frames the round. A good k debater should have deep topic knowledge and be able to contextually apply their argument. On the aff (for Ks that aim to interact with the topic) it requires deep involvement with the core discussions of the topic. For affs that abandon the topic, they purport themselves to be uniquely important forms of education and in many ways are.

 

3- K alts can be basically characterized in 2 ways: strong alts and weak alts. Strong alts claim to result in some sort of structural change to resolve the links to the aff (and status quo). The basic strategy with this kind of alt is to win an external impact to the aff and internal link turn its advantages to claim to resolve its impacts. Weak alts are about ethical orientation of the ballot and/or people in the room. These alts are geared toward critiquing the framing of the aff. Some alts can claim to be a mixture of the 2 and (should) pick one of the two basic strategies for the 2nr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a k debater, we definitely talk about the aff, just from a different stance or viewpoint. Good k debate involves link contextualization, engaging with the aff's framing, and knowing your literature base like no other. If anyone would like an example of this, I could do a basic cap round on here. 

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...