Jump to content

Luminite2

Member
  • Content Count

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Luminite2 last won the day on April 8 2012

Luminite2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About Luminite2

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Name
    Parker Riley
  • School
    De Soto
  1. Luminite2

    Usfg Key

    So, on the original topic... If your Aff is interstate (like, highways or something), then the states CP doesn't make sense because they don't have the authority. Just make it a transportation system that spans multiple states and that is used for commerce, and you have a Constitutionality DA to the CP.
  2. You can definitely make this claim; teams may have evidence against it, but they probably won't be very comfortable debating the question because it doesn't come up very often. You should definitely pair it with some "NWar != Extinction" cards too. Strategically, you have to design a cohesive strategy that makes sense. A very common impact that would work well is warming; the other team will be prepared for it, but there's good literature. Otherwise, look for other large impacts; it pains me to say it, but you should probably make them extinction impacts. For example, some Affs this year have a colonization/get off the rock advantage; that's able to solve a whole bunch of really weird impacts (volcanoes, disease, random cosmic events, and asteroid strikes). It'd be hard to do that on next year's topic, but who knows; I haven't seen the lit. You could try finding literature on things that could result in extinction, and then try to work backwards, to find some way of accessing that impact.
  3. My main problem with this: You admit that K alts have no real-world impacts/solvency... so, what is there left to vote on? You say "it doesn't matter that we don't ACTUALLY solve Cap, it just matters that we SAY we should, because it would be good if we did!" Well, I think that a legitimate response by the Aff would be, "yes, we don't ACTUALLY prevent extinction, it just matters that we SAY we should, because it would be good if we did!" If you're going to run an alternative with your K, you are defending some sort of action. The only two types of action are post-fiat "fake" actions and pre-fiat "real-world" actions. If you're going to say that you "obviously" aren't advocating a real-world enactment, then that allows the Aff to 1) outweigh the K with their policy impacts, and 2) perm it. Since those are basically the two things that a good K/alt is meant to prevent, the method of running K's that you describe is sub-par and thus not a reason why "you can vote neg."
  4. Well, there are a number of theoretical concerns with them; that's why they have fallen out of whatever favor they used to have. However, the idea is that they are advocating something, it just happens to be a change in history. If somebody were running a counterfactual, they would have a lot of things that normal cases have: advantages, solvency, et cetera. The main differences would be: 1. The solvency timeframe is negative. 2. The harms are empirically proven. Rest assured, your initial aversion to this type of argument is well-justified.
  5. It seems like the OP's question has been answered, so I felt a need to jump in on this point. The first example is, in my mind, not a contradiction. If combined, it reads: "If it gets too cold or too hot, your body will shut down and you will die." This is a perfectly reasonable statement; it's just that it makes no claim as to whether it will get too hot/cold in the near future. It's like saying "Large increases or decreases (i.e. change) in global temperatures results in extinction"; that's fine, you just haven't said whether the plan significantly changes temperatures, and in which direction. The second example is a true contradiction; one must be true, but one must also be false. Because they're truth claims ("it IS raining") as opposed to judgments ("raining IS bad"), it's a double bind; as you said, it either is or it isn't. Double binds often constitute good arguments: there are only two possibilities, and if they're both bad, then the Aff is bad no matter what. Contradictory judgments, however, are where it devolves into bad or potentially abusive debate. If the Neg says (explicitly or implicitly) that a CP is both good (avoids the DA) and bad (links to the K), it gets tricky. If I say that the CP is bad because it links to the K, then I'm conceding that the K is legit. If I impact turn the K, that becomes a net benefit to the CP. I personally believe that most "condo bad" claims are products of Affs that don't want to take the time to figure out what to concede and what to contest, but there are situations where it could potentially be an issue. EDIT: I'm not sure if I disagree; I generally believe that the opportunity cost model is best, but the Neg isn't always advocating that a continuation of the SQ ("do nothing") is best. I do agree that the Neg always defends the same thing: we should not do the plan. "Should" expresses desirability, and something is desirable if it is the best option in a list of competitive courses of action. A CP just argues that the plan isn't at the top of that list, and thus that it should not be enacted; the Neg doesn't need to make any claims about whether we "should" do the CP. That's why a Neg could (theoretically) win on a bad CP (i.e. one that is worse than doing nothing) as long as they prove that it's better than the plan. As for saying that the CP will happen in the SQ, and that being open to theory debates: that's called Inherency.
  6. So, I was prepping out some answers to Ptx for Nats, and I came upon an interesting realization. Most Politics disads say that Obama loses PC, or certain key Congresspeople get angry, when the plan passes through Congress. However, I don't see why those bills have to go through Congress. NASA is a part of the executive branch, and it's an independent agency that reports directly to the President. The only time that legislation deals with NASA is for funding; while Congress will sometimes appropriate additional funds and say that they have to go toward X program, most of the specifics of what NASA does with its money is not mandated by specific legislation. When coupled with the fact that, under normal means, NASA's budget is frozen at $18.7 billion for five years, it seems to me that most plans don't even need to go through Congress, as long as they don't involve other countries, private corporations, or other governmental actors. If this is true, then I draw two conclusions about plans that meet those criteria: 1. Most Politics disads don't link, at all. 2. XO CP's are arguably within normal means. Am I missing something crucial here? Again, I realize that there are certainly a good number of plans that still link, but is it not reasonable to conclude that a good number don't? I'd appreciate input from anybody with more familiarity with the organizational structure of NASA, or Ptx in general.
  7. I do not mean to offend, but this post is funny for a few reasons.
  8. Well, my tHought is thAT this is a perfeCt example Of why predictability arguments On topicality are dumb. Like, it seems thAt you're NoT only DOing what amounts to a cop-out on that argument, but mY thOUght is that yoU are juStifying ridiculously untopical cases as long as they're "disclosed" a long time before the tournaments start... also, the fact that you compare the noble argument of topicality with the most generic, uneducational disads ever is disturbing.. or is that just mE?
  9. Luminite2

    K Uq

    JMA is absolutely correct; however, your claim (either "x is inevitable" is "x already happened and we haven't seen the impact") is still a good one to make. If the alt only solves one instance of x (i.e. this specific round), then you might be able to (with some Framework help) win that there are other impacts that outweigh just one instance, especially considering that all of the other instances will still exist. If you make that claim and they say "alt solves," then they are basically saying that the alt would solve all instances of x (capitalism, securitization, whatever); if they do that, they are open to utopian/international fiat theory. As a general rule, you should ask in the 1st CX who the actor is for the alt; most of the time, it's the judge, but you want to make sure.
  10. I don't like interjecting on vdebate threads, but I have a question/observation about the Debris DA. Your 1NC said that debris destroys satellites; although you didn't explicitly state "debris turns the case" there, it was pretty obvious. Then, the 2AC attacked the uniqueness and the impact. The Impact-D had one pretty generic argument ("it's overhyped"), and some stuff about sheilding and maneuvering. There's excellent evidence out there that debris under 10cm diameter can't be tracked, making maneuvering impossible, and current shielding can't solve stuff over 1cm (and, as you said, the plan doesn't mandate shielding). Honestly, the Neg is on the side of truth with the claim "debris blows stuff up," and the main question is the brink. However, the Aff didn't say "no brink"; they said that it's inevitable. So, if you conceded the UQ argument and spent a bit of time on answering the Impact-D, then the Aff wouldn't have any solvency; they'd essentially admitted that their satellites will get blown up no matter what. The link was conceded, and the inevitability arguments had no real timeframe, so you could convert it to a linear DA, saying that their plan doesn't work no matter what but every time we launch something we have less time to prepare for the impacts (global warming, in this case). If you found some stuff about how existing satellites are key to the Aff's advantages (for example, there's some good "sats key to heg" stuff), then you've avoided "try or die" claims as well. I'm not here to be like "you should have done this!", especially considering that you won anyway, but what was the reasoning behind your decision to drop Debris? Was it because the CP linked too? I'm just curious, because this was a pretty good example of an Aff mishandling the Debris disad (no offense though; it's tricky).
  11. University of Kansas Parker Riley - De Soto
  12. I appreciate the discussion, YoungGun, and while I would refrain from using terms like "awful," I do believe that there is some non-responsiveness happening (on both sides; I've done it too). First of all, as Chaos indicated, the bolded portion is only true if you accept that Negs are entitled to K links, and it's false because the Neg can use post-fiat links (i.e. your plan would, if enacted, lead to more capitalism, which is morally reprehensible). As for changing methodology (I'll accept that term), your claim that it isn't "allowed" only makes sense if your other arguments are assumed to be correct; I think it's apparent that I don't assume that, and ardently believe the opposite for most of them. The first sentence is, again, only bad if you assume entitlement. If you believe that some instances of the Cap K being voted on won't elicit real-world change, then why should they be voted on? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me like any advocacy (plan, CP, alt) is only worth voting for if either 1) it would elicit positive change if it were enacted in "the real world", or 2) it would elicit positive change if it were voted for, even if fiat is illusory and it wouldn't actually happen. If you say that the alt never uses fiat, and also that it doesn't create real-world change, then why vote on it? Some sort of D-Rule? That is certainly an option in some K's (Timecube...), but my understanding is that that isn't the case for Cap. Also, unless you're critiquing consequentialism, any K argument is going to have impacts (i.e. bad things that will happen if you don't vote Neg). If the K doesn't use fiat and doesn't elicit real-world change, then how can it solve them? I am legitimately curious; I feel like I must be misunderstanding something, because this simply does not make sense to me. On 1: I'd agree that (in most cases) the Aff can't advocate a perm, but I don't think that it "goes way" if the Neg wins a residual link. The fact that the link is residual means that it probably isn't as strong, and therefore allows the impacts to be outweighed more easily. If the impacts are outweighed, then the perm is no longer competitive. "Competition" is just a way of saying that a choice has to be made between the plan and alt, even if they are not mutually exclusive. If the Neg runs a K with an alt, they are basically conceding that the Aff is better than the SQ; otherwise the Neg wouldn't need to advocate anything other than the SQ. As you said, the alt generates uniqueness. So, at that point, the Neg must win that the alt is better than the plan, but they must also win that it is competitive. To do this, they have to win that the alt is better than the perm as well, and that's where you seem to disagree. If the Neg wins a residual link to the perm, but the Aff wins that the perm is better than the alt, then they win. Why? Well, the Neg already admitted (or failed to argue against the claim) that the plan is better than the SQ, so winning that the perm is better means that, no matter what, the best possible scenario is one in which the entirety of the plan has been passed. Therefore, voting Neg would preclude that best option; just as a CP is an opportunity-cost to the plan's passage, the perm is an opportunity-cost to refusing to pass it. It isn't an advocacy, but neither is the alt (assuming that you aren't running it unconditionally... but even then, it's debatable). (Grouped for logical flow) I'll accept your premise, but how is the Aff (btw, do you mean the 1AC or the team?) "based upon" capitalism? If, as I said, the 1AC never gives any indication that capitalism is good, and never claims an advantage that would result in more capitalism, then how do you determine that it's based on capitalism? A few things: 1. If your "News flash" is correct, that means that you admit that the Cap K is ridiculously generic... that doesn't make it a bad (i.e. incorrect) argument, but it does make it a whole lot easier for the Neg to link too. 2. I think that you are using "based upon" ambiguously; if the 1AC arguments can only be considered true if one makes the assumption that capitalism is good, then I agree that the K would be responsive. But if, as in this example, they aren't, then in what way is the Aff "based upon" capitalism? If the arguments aren't, then you must be claiming that link is based off of the team itself... I believe that horrible people can win if they make good arguments, so I believe that such a link wouldn't matter. If you disagree with that, then that's a question of FW; I personally believe that that's bad because it makes the K an ad hominem argument, which I believe to be childish. Also, related to (1), links based on the teams themselves mean that the Neg would link too. Basically, there are two possible link sources: the arguments, and the arguers. The whole point of the example I gave was to posit a situation in which the arguments are not capitalist. You responded saying that they would still link, which means that (unless I'm misinterpreting you) you're claiming that the link is the "methodology" of the Affirmative debaters themselves, and I believe that that's bad. If I'm misinterpreting you, could you perhaps try to specify when you mean the Aff team, as opposed to the Aff arguments? (I reached the max number of quotable blocks... The rest are in red.) "If they think all of capitalism is bad, they probably shouldn't do that either. Most of the teams that read that cap k would probably say that there are good aspects to capitalism, it's just that they have been over-shadowed by what Zizek would call the "excesses of capitalism" that cause all of the impacts." If not all capitalism is bad, and the Aff doesn't advocate (or even link to) the bad parts of it (exploitation, for example), then why vote Neg? To reiterate, the example that I posted was one in which they aren'tadvocating any of the bad parts of capitalism (with an econ, mining, or similar advantage). Surely you aren't arguing that there is no such thing as a non-capitalist advantage...? "That's just plain wrong. If I win an impact to the foundation of the affirmative, then I prove that it isn't desirable." Again, ambiguity on the word "affirmative." You used "it," so I'll assume that you mean the body of Aff arguments. If that assumption is correct, then my point still stands: if the claim "capitalism is good" is not something that the Aff has to win in order to show that their arguments are correct, then saying "capitalism is bad" is non-responsive. Before I go any further: you keep throwing around the phrases "post-fiat" and "post-fiat moral disad". The K should never (and does never) funcition in a post-fiat world. They are questions of the assumptions of the affirmative which are pre-fiat considerations. That's debate 101. Another instance of non-responsiveness. One thing that I've done repeatedly in my arguments is attempt to show that a lot of your arguments don't make sense if you assume that the K impacts are never post-fiat. This is answered in numerous other places, but I will repeat one: if the way in which an action, such as passing the plan (post-fiat) or voting for it in a round (pre-fiat), is justified is by determining whether it would make the world "a better place", and if you say that the alt doesn't elicit real-world change stemming from voting Aff, then how can you also claim that the K doesn't deal with real-world enactment of the plan? I'm not comparing them to disads, I'm making a point. If you say that something is good (implicitly or explicitly) and I claim a link off of it, you don't have room to complain about it, you have to defend it. I never once said that the links come from the plan text, and yes, I do think it's fair that most affs mandate capitalist thinking. You don't have to be explicit about something to support it. It comes back to the desirability argument. If I win a link to the aff and an impact, then it proves that the plan is not desirable and therefore that the alternative is preferable. This ignores my point. If I make an implicit claim that something is good, I only have to defend it if that claim is key in the logical progression toward my ultimate claim (which is, "the Resolution is true"). If you believe that that is an incorrect ultimate question, then that (again) is a core FW issue. I believe that it should be because the Rez is presented as a statement, and the names of the teams (AFFIRMative, NEGATive) indicate that they are meant to prove and disprove it, respectively. There are normative arguments about this as well (fairness, education, whatever), but those are in any Aff FW file. I think that descriptive arguments are more persuasive than normative ones, but that's a personal outlook, and it really doesn't matter here. If you win a link and an impact, I don't think that that necessarily proves that the plan is not desirable. I hate to repeat myself, but you are ignoring my claim that, at best, you could win that intellectually endorsing / voting for the plan would be undesirable. In fact, your response to this was "That's just plain wrong. [insert repetition of earlier claim here]." No, I'm saying I'm tired of repeating the warrants to why severance is bad because, guess what, it's bad. There's never a circumstance in which it's good. The only question is "is what he's advocating severance?" and I think it is, as I've said so. Right, and I've said that it isn't, and provided warrants for it. You don't need to be repeating your warrants for why severance is bad, because I agree... It's not contradiction. The plan extends beyond just the words on a piece of paper (or on a computer screen). You have to defend the assumptions behind the plan before you can win that the plan is a good idea. In rounds where they are called into question, you have to defend them. As per the example above, if I read a cap K that calls into question the underlying capitalist epistemology (or whatever other -ology you want to use) of the plan, then you can't just say "you're right, I changed my mind, capitalism is bad" and pretend like the plan isn't inherently capitalist, which is what he seems to be advocating. This answered above, but to be explicit: Your third sentence is only true if those assumptions, logically, must be correct in order for your overall claim to be true. My argument is that in certain situations (like the example I gave), they don't have to be true. Also, what are some examples of atrocities that occured that weren't directly the result of some lack of ontological questioning? Two examples, in different categories: 1. 9/11. Ontological questioning happened, it's just that the perpetrators came to a conclusion that you happen to disagree with. 2. The Chernoble disaster. It's not that the operators failed to question the ontology behind killing people with an explosion, because it was unintentional. I'll admit that #2 is probably weaker than #1. I'd be curious to know, though, of some "atrocities" that resulted from a complete lack of ontological questioning. I'm sure that there are some, but the most well-known atrocities (9/11, Holocaust) were not made solely on calculative considerations... the people doing them believed that they were morally justified. On the contrary, none of the links he posted were "post-fiat" links. I could see why they would look that way, though. They aren't questions of the world post plan, they are questions of the methodology of the affirmative, which is inherently a pre-fiat issue. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is correct. Could you pick one or two of them and explain, specifically, why they are pre-fiat links? My argument is that the tags were phrased in the format of "something that the plan does leads to capitalism or capitalist thought." A great example is this one: "Space exploration spills over to capitalist domination of space." Maybe we are suffering from a core disagreement about what the terms we're using mean, but I consider this to be a very blatant post-fiat wording; the argument is that increasing exploration of space would lead to space being dominated by capitalism. If a K link is pre-fiat, then you have to ignore all of the stuff that would happen if the plan were actually passed (because that's all post-fiat, by definition). If voting for the plan doesn't actually lead to an increase in space exploration, then it seems like there's a missing internal. Here's how I see the logical progression: 1. [Aff:] Plan explores space. 2. [Neg:] Exploring space leads to capitalist exploitation. 3. [Neg:] Capitalist exploitation is bad, and should be rejected on moral grounds. My understanding is that #2 doesn't make sense if you ignore everything that the plan would actually lead to. But the plan is not good...the plan is capitalist (or at least that's what I'd argue). My argument is that plan focus arguments don't get you anywhere in this circumstance because the plan is capitalist too. The better response is to just say "capitalism is good", which is actually a response. How is the plan capitalist if it doesn't lead to or directly mandate any of the "bad" parts of capitalism? You made a distinction...
  13. So, it looks like there are two main points of contention: does the Neg link by using laptops, and what can an Aff do that isn't considered abusive severance. Macbooks: This really depends on the what the Neg uses as a link. Situations where the Neg is probably safe from a perf-con argument: The Aff says "we use and preserve capitalism, which is good"; however, that never really happens. The Aff defends a post-fiat advantage that would preserve capitalism (i.e. an econ advantage); however, in this case the K would be a post-fiat moral disad, and you seem to be of the belief that a K could never be like that. The Aff advocates that some inherently capitalistic advantage (i.e. anything to do with mining) is desirable; this is a little more situational, but it does provide a pretty good pre-fiat K link. This is probably what you are talking about, but it is definitely not the only situation where the Neg will try to garner a link. Link scenarios that probably link to the Neg as well, enough to at least bring up: The Aff advocates using the USFG (a capitalist entity), spending money (a cornerstone of capitalism), or exploring space (which, if you buy half of the generic link cards in Cap K files, is inherently capitalist). Using the USFG is only arguable bad because it involves engaging capitalism for any purpose other than dismantling it; the Neg engaged the system by buying the laptops. Even if the Aff links more because they bought stuff too and advocated using the USFG, it just shows that the alt can't solve all instances of the link that are under the judge's jurisdiction to solve, meaning that the Neg can't access the full weight of their impacts, making it very easy for the Aff to outweigh them. Also, it shows that it's ok to "work within the system," and even support it a little bit, just as long as you recognize that it's bad. Oh look, it's a perm! Spending money is a bad link too, basically for the same reasons. The exploration link is more interesting. There are two ways to spin it: 1) "Exploration will result in exploitation and more capitalist thinking." - This is post-fiat again, and you categorically exclude those links from consideration. 2) "The Aff must believe that exploitation is good, or they wouldn't advocate space exploration." - If the Aff didn't have an advantage that directly links to Cap (econ, mining, heg, or really anything that favors the US over anybody else), then the Neg has no way to prove that the Aff is truly capitalist through their discourse (remember, there is a difference between capitalists and anti-capitalists who don't devote all of their time to actively dismantling it). Therefore, the Neg would have to look at the Aff's actions. That would allow the Aff to look to the Neg's actions, where we see that they supported the system by buying laptops just so they could pick up a few ballots. If I'm not making myself clear, here are a few link cards taken directly from a Cap K file on Open Evidence: "The desire to explore and develop space is not neutral – it is rooted in capitalist ideology; Parker 2009" Hmm... Seems like this gives no reason to believe that the Aff team is inherently capitalist, unless you want to defend that all calls for space exploration must be driven by secret capitalist desires, by definition... "Nothing changes in space - profit motive makes resource exploitation inevitable and unquestioned under their framework; Tort 2005" Just so you know, the bolded portion is a post-fiat argument. The "unquestioned" portion is getting a little better, but it's still just a link of omission. Even if the Neg doesn't link (because they advocate doing something about it), they can't really garner uniqueness: they can't do anything about all of the other people who don't devote all of their time to dismantling capitalism, which means that the Neg loses to "Cap inevitable." "Space exploration spills over to capitalist domination of space; Parker 2009" Oh look, more post-fiat links... By the way, that means that either 1) the impact is therefore post-fiat, or 2) the Neg tries to run it pre-fiat, saying "they advocated something that would lead to capitalism!", but if (as you seem to believe) the K is about mindsets, then you can't really punish the Aff for a way of thinking that they didn't illustrate in the speech; after all, it was the Neg who claimed that they were advocating something that would lead to more capitalism eventually. "The get off the rock mentality only leads to continuation of exploitative practices - only the alternative can solve inevitability arguments; Lin 2006" This one is better, because it seems to criticize a mindset instead of an effect, but the card itself only says that the anthropogenic problems on Earth will eventually follow us if we don't change our mindset. This only matters for the mindsets of the people who actually decide what our policies are (i.e. not the Aff), and you'll notice that the tag is also trying to leverage the alternative against inevitability claims, which (as I believe you said) the Neg isn't supposed to be doing. Maybe this isn't how you run the Cap K, but at the very least it shows that there are teams that run it in a way that would make all of the arguments in previous posts relevant. Ok, one more, this time an impact card: "Global capitalism threatens survival; Zizek 1999" Surely I don't have to explain the problems with using this as your impact while arguing that inevitability claims don't matter because you are restricting your criticism to the capitalist mindsets present in this single round... If you have doubts, feel free to double-check me; it's the SDI file on OE. Next, severance: Well, the good news is that you admit that the Aff isn't severing out of their plan text. However, your claim that they must defend the methodology is completely unwarranted, and in fact the only reason you give is normative, saying that Negs would never get to win a link. First of all, that is false: look to the links above. They use post-fiat implications as links. And, if the Aff defends an econ advantage, they will have said that collapse is coming in the SQ, so they've done half of the work needed to use the Cap K as an impact turn. You also make the implicit claim that the K would be unable to elicit real-world change because the Aff would have no incentive to just read the same plan again. Well, if you run the K as above, that's not an issue, but if you don't, then I would just point out that the Neg doesn't care either; they just want to win rounds. Also, even if you consider it severance, the Aff doesn't change; they just research impact turns, meaning that no real education about the evils of capitalism happens. In fact, it actually gets turned. Also, I don't think that "methodology" is a good word for this... it implies implementation, which is governed by normal means and is a post-fiat issue anyway. Ontology, representations, discourse, thinking, et cetera; those would be more accurate. At that point, the claim seems much less justifiable on its face. Random other problems I had with your responses: I disagree. Perms are tests of competition, yes, but they have just as much potential to solve stuff as the alt does. If the alt is meant to solve something, then the portion of the perm that comes from the alt is going to solve too... Yes, the Neg could try to win a link from the plan portion of the perm, but my point is that it might not matter. If the alt is "reject (the Aff's) capitalist justifications," then a perm of "pass the plan an reject its capitalist justifications" would solve the link, and would be strategic as long as the Aff had a non-capitalist advantage to use as leverage against the Neg's other arguments. You don't have to write the word "Negative" on a piece of paper in order to reject a certain way of thinking... I find this logical progression interesting, particularly the jump from the first to the second statement. If I run a debris affirmative, and happen to be operating under the assumption that 2+2 is 5, I don't have to defend that that is correct should the issue come up. Why? Because it is in no way crucial to the accuracy of my claims (i.e. that solving debris is good). You will probably say "that example is ridiculous, bad math isn't related to debris!" - Mostly true, but my whole point is that there are Affs that get hit by the Cap K even though their case isn't based on the argument that capitalism is good. Two very capitalist people could run a case that has no econ advantages, mining, or even rhetoric saying that capitalism is good; if the Neg knew (and, for the sake of argument, could somehow prove) that they are capitalists, then your argument would say that they should lose. However, the K in that situation would have absolutely no impact on whether the plan is a good idea. And, your third sentence is based on the assumption that they are actually "rooted in capitalist thinking," which I'm trying to show is very hard to prove in certain cases, even though Negs say it anyway. Also, your third sentence is a justification for perf-con arguments. Let me try to mimic its construction: "If they don't think that capitalism is good, then they shouldn't be making purchases that are rooted in capitalist thinking." Above. You yourself keep saying that the link is the ontology/thinking of the Affirmative; if so, then you have just admitted that the K doesn't care about the actual plan, in which case it has no bearing on its desirability. If it is a test of desirability, it is post-fiat. Fiat is not a magic wand; it's a tool for determining desirability of certain actions. At best, you could win that the K is a test of the desirability of intellectually endorsing the plan (i.e. voting for it). That argument is at the core of every framework debate ever, and I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't get anywhere repeating that exchange here. I wouldn't disagree with you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You keep saying that K's are never post-fiat, yet you compare them to disads, which are always post-fiat... Yes, there is no way to avoid such a link because the Aff mandates it. No plan text ever reads "Support capitalist thinking." That's what you keep saying the link is on the K, yet I think it's fair to say that no Aff ever mandates that... therefore, the claim that the Aff increases capitalist thinking has to be predicated off of something other than the plan text, which I'm arguing is the only thing that they have to defend in order to prove that the Resolution is true. Even if both team members were zealous capitalists who also happened to think that killing people is fun, that wouldn't make the Resolution any less true if they presented good warrants for it's truth.
  14. Sure, but does the Aff link more than the Neg in this situation? What if the perm solves the link? Isn't that the whole point of a permutation, to solve the link? It seems like your argument that "a good K team" can turn any perm into a link, if true/important, would mean that Affs always lose to K's... Is it? By admitting to an ontological error, they're not severing any part of the plan, which is the only thing that they advocate... Sure, everybody has the "representations are entangled with advocacy" cards, but that argument seems odd because you end up arguing that the Aff justified their plan with something that reflects a morally reprehensible misunderstanding by the Aff (i.e. the idea that cap is good), and then go on to say that they aren't allowed to change their outlook to one that recognizes the harms of capitalism; if we assume that K teams actually care about the critiques that they run (lol), this seems like an awfully counterproductive argument to be making if your goal is to actually bring about change in thinking. Granted, if you concede an econ advantage and then critique that outcome specifically, the K functions as a post-fiat moral disad that will always link, but you yourself said that this isn't ever the case because the alt "doesn't ever use fiat." The desirability of the plan is all that the Aff has to win in order to uphold the Rez, and you claim that the K doesn't criticize that (instead focusing on advantages/representations), but in the same breath you say that they have no way to avoid the link... If a team provides representations that link to the Cap K, you critique them, and then they admit to their errors, the alt has already happened; they rejected their capitalistic assumptions themselves, so the judge needn't intervene. And, don't say that the Aff probably doesn't actually care, because we all know that the Neg doesn't either, and either way it's subjective. If that were really true, most Negs would lose to "cap inevitable"... but in any case, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't use fiat, then it is limited to a request to the judge to vote Neg in order to solve capitalist thinking in this specific round. If the Neg also links to the K (i.e. the whole point of this thread), then a rejection alt results in a double-loss. If the alt is just "vote Neg", then it doesn't solve the impacts. However, this quoted argument of yours also means that the only thing being solved for by the ballot is the Aff's capitalist thinking. If they admit that cap is bad, then the impact has already been solved... Again, just my thoughts, but if somebody's going to respond, don't do so with blippy, one-sentence responses that reflect the assumption that your arguments are automatically or objectively correct. The whole reason for a discussion is the argument that they aren't.
  15. I basically agree with all of this, but all three seem like good arguments for why some sort of permutation would solve. Disallowing capitalists from trying to fix their ways, disallowing capitalists to offer solutions that engage the system in some way, and disallowing capitalists to admit to an ontological error in their representations while still advocating other plan benefits all seem like bad ways to have a K debate that would actually allow for the identified harms to be solved. It seems to me that most kritiks either A ) essentially function as post-fiat disads with moral impacts that are either non-unique or that are only unique through the use of an alt that abuses fiat, or B ) they function as pre-fiat criticisms of stuff that the Aff does that, while bad, is not required to be upheld by the Aff for the entire debate (unlike, say, their plan text). Obviously those aren't new arguments against K's, but the above quotes seem to imply these claims.
×
×
  • Create New...