Jump to content
Avery

Content Warning K

Recommended Posts

I know, I know another question from me sorry.

I am writing a content warning K. It is for when teams read a soft left type argument and don't provide a content warning. I will be willing to giving anyone who wants to help what I have now and when I am finished.

Please message if you would willing to help or give insight.

Thank you,

Avery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few problems with this idea -

 

1. This seems VERY generic - if you want to call out soft left teams for not providing a content warning, you should write a specific kritik for the specific type of content they don't warn about - a generic content warning kritik will only have a shakier impact story, much less specific and relevant content, and overall probably won't be very persuasive.

 

2. The impacts standalone aren't very strong. I find "drop the team" arguments almost always very unpersuasive, and most judges usually have some degree of skepticism for drop the team arguments. Usually, you take the soft-left team's lack of trigger warning, or whatever, and use it as a specific link to a different kritik. This will always be stronger, have a better overall link, and will be more persuasive and a generic "they didn't say trigger warning so drop them".

 

If you can find a way to work around these two problems and create a cool new generic kritik for content warnings, im all ears, but I highly doubt a viable kritik of this nature is feasible.

 

Good Luck!

~ OutKTheK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do people normally articulate "don't drop the team" arguments against Kritiks? When it comes to T and theory, then you can make the argument that the "transaction cost" of wasting this specific round hashing out debate norms to optimize them a little further outweighs the expected benefits of the norm change. This is what good articulations of Reasonability look like. But when it comes to Kritiks, this seems much harder to do, because you're dealing with much bigger problems than just fairness and education.

I know that Forgiveness perms and the like exist, but I think they're usually seen as non-starters.

Edited by CanIGetAFavor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CanIGetAFavor said:

when it comes to Kritiks, this seems much harder to do, because you're dealing with much bigger problems than just fairness and education.

As a general aside, tons of people do argue that the debate should be strictly about the consequences of the plan. The impact evaluation is usually similar to framework arguments against kritikal affs: fairness is a prerequisite to evaluation, procedural issues come first etc. just like you couldn't argue that a nuclear war impact outweighs a T violation. That's why links to the framework itself are necessary. That said,

I usually think of kritiks of micro-aggressions (gendered language, trigger warnings, etc.) as being distinct from other Ks. I don't think it's especially controversial to say that these are often not complaints about the substance of the 1AC. The "don't drop the team" argument is relevant in these cases.  The OP's kritik would basically outline issues with the other team's presentation in or out of the debate. In a vacuum, it is easier to argue that this is not a productive or relevant issue to vote on than it is to argue the same about an argument like afropessimism or the cap kritik. There are numerous issues like the debatability of the links, the intentionality of the links, or the actual size of the impact that are not as easy to raise against larger Ks. I think this is basically what @OutKTheK was suggesting in the 2nd point. When you make these links and impacts in the context of a larger kritik, it becomes a more compelling argument because it isn't a isolated incident, and instead it can become evidence of a pattern that a K like afropessimism highlights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think content warning Ks are usually particularly strong, just because they probably link to pretty much everything in debate, and it's impossible to anticipate everything that could cause a problem for someone else. I also think that a 2AC apology is probably pretty effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 12:40 PM, CanIGetAFavor said:

How do people normally articulate "don't drop the team" arguments against Kritiks?

 

Definitely what @seanarchy said. Also, you could probably argue that the judge should reject the argument and not the team. Rejecting the team leads to bad norm creation because teams  are then practically excluded from debate even if they won the other flows.

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

×