Jump to content

heresoidontgetfined

Member
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Okay

About heresoidontgetfined

  • Rank
    Novice
  1. Sorry for all my questions. Thanks so much for your answers to these posts -- they've been tremendously helpful. I've been reading a lot about realism and the threat-con K recently, and I'm realizing that I don't understand what makes a critique a critique. Here's my understanding of how a threat-con K typically works: A. Link: realism bad because you create enemies when you call them enemies (self-fulfilling prophecies). E.g. moving troops near a supposed adversary turns them into an adversary even if they previously weren't because they have to act defensively. B. Impact: everyone dies. C. Alternative: stop viewing countries as categorically "good" or "bad" -- remove "ally" and "enemy" labels. Here's what I don't get... How is that not just a disadvantage or a counterplan? Can't I achieve the same thing by saying: Disad: calling X country an enemy turns them into an enemy when they're actually not one, which links to everyone dying. I read the following in William Bennett's 1996 Rostrum article "An Introduction to the 'Kritik'": But how do you divorce assumptions and policy implications? In a K, we care about the assumption only because of its impact (isn't the format of a K supposed to be link/impact/alternative?)... so how can we say that a K is only about core assumptions? And by saying that a K doesn't assume the burdens of a DA, isn't that just trying to be lazy about writing what's actually a DA? Thanks in advance for clarifying. It's a big help.
  2. My understanding of spikes is that they're put in a case as mines that get triggered if the opponent runs a certain argument. But... that's as much as I understand. Could someone help me better understand what spikes are? Specifically: 1. How do you write a spike? What are the elements of a spike? 2. What happens if a spike gets triggered? 3. What is the theory behind spikes? Why should the consequences of triggering a spike be so serious -- why should the debater writing the spike get to decide what happens to his/her opponent just because they triggered the spike? 4. Where do spikes go in the case? 5. How do you deal with spikes? Thanks so much!
  3. I don't think I mean roadmapping -- I've been hearing this word used in ways that don't seem to refer to roadmapping. Here is the thing I read that triggered this question: "A positional take out is just an argument that you can make that can be used generally to sever the affirmatives' ability to link their offense back to their criterion, or generate offense in any other manner. One example of a positional take out is an overview on the contention. These can be devastating because people often just ignore them." Maybe the author still means roadmapping when he says "overview"? ...but if he does, then the above quote makes no sense to me. Any help is appreciated. Thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...