Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Looking for a normativity Kritik for my team. Anyone know where I could find one? Thanks in advance.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a meh argument on it's own that can be accomplished through an analytic to supplant a discourse/representations/experiential focus first k, like "their aff doesnt actually occur, 2 impacts, first is presumption, the aff can't resolve their impacts; second, we have criticized the way they depict 'x' in this debate, you should evaluate impacts to their presentation before scenario-based impacts of the aff." A discourse first card or two is helpful.

 

Schlag just says academic legal discourse is vacuous, creates a savior complex, and contributes to "the field of pain and death." It's notable that this is in no way contextual to the aff and ends up being a presumption type argument that most judges would accept the response of "obvi the aff doesn't actually happen the education of what we discuss is important because scenario planning (or whatever)."

 

Basically you don't need nearly 30 year old cards to make an obvious statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the field of pain and death

This may be the edgiest thing I've ever seen a k author say, and I've seen some pretty edgy shit from k authors

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a meh argument on it's own that can be accomplished through an analytic to supplant a discourse/representations/experiential focus first k, like "their aff doesnt actually occur, 2 impacts, first is presumption, the aff can't resolve their impacts; second, we have criticized the way they depict 'x' in this debate, you should evaluate impacts to their presentation before scenario-based impacts of the aff." A discourse first card or two is helpful.

 

Schlag just says academic legal discourse is vacuous, creates a savior complex, and contributes to "the field of pain and death." It's notable that this is in no way contextual to the aff and ends up being a presumption type argument that most judges would accept the response of "obvi the aff doesn't actually happen the education of what we discuss is important because scenario planning (or whatever)."

 

Basically you don't need nearly 30 year old cards to make an obvious statement.

Thanks so much! I think i'll cut a short K just to have evidence for it. The premise is a whole lot clearer now. thanks!

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

×