Topicality and Kritiks
Ms Em 49
stock issue problem with a kritik? Is is legitimate to run topicality foreign
policy along with cultural imperialism? Is it abusive to force the affirmative
to concede the kritik to prove topicality or vice-versa, or is it just a damn
good strategy? As I understand it, you are debating on two different levels to
leave the affirmative no way to win. Maybe it is a good strategy, but isn't it
intellectually dishonest?
Emily
Central H.S.
"What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?"
"I don't know and I don't care."
If the opposite of pro is con, is the opposite of progress Congress?
Politicans and diapers need to be changed...often for the same reason.
Joker
a
>stock issue problem with a kritik? Is is legitimate to run topicality
foreign
>policy along with cultural imperialism? Is it abusive to force the
affirmative
>to concede the kritik to prove topicality or vice-versa, or is it just a
damn
>good strategy? As I understand it, you are debating on two different
levels to
>leave the affirmative no way to win. Maybe it is a good strategy, but
isn't it
>intellectually dishonest?
Yeah, it is. It's downright evil. You're creating a sort of moralistic
dichotomy for the sole purpose of winning the debate round.
Think about it this way: a kritik makes an almost categorical contention
that a certain type of discursive method is evil and should be rejected. In
the case of cultural imperialism, you're contending that the Aff sets Russia
up as "foreign" by reading Dalby or someone, and claiming that this is
ethnocentric or something. Then you turn around and do the same thing. So
not only are you being ethnocentric, you're doing it purposefully while
purporting that it's wrong, while the Aff probably had no clue they were
committing an evil act.
Two reasons that's bad:
First: you diminish the power of the kritik. All kritiks. You're implicitly
claiming that "it's bad for them to be immoral, but I can do whatever I
like." When that happens, there's no more moral responsibility. What the
point of morality anymore?
Second: well, it's obvious. Would you run a kritik attacking the other team
for being sexist and then use words like "mankind" and "bitch"? What kind of
person are you then? It's an analagous situation.
It's much different than running a DA and a T violation to get the Aff to
concede to one. You're making a moral contention of some sort and then
violating it. A wise Aff would just say (given the correct round, and this
is what I'd do), "yeah, I violate the T, but that means I meed that kritik,
and since that's more important, I win. furthermore, they lose, because they
ran the kritik and then they violated it. end of story."
Just a thought.
Seth Poulos
Ashland Debate
The Army of the 12 Monkeys
SNbkwm
>stock issue problem with a kritik? Is is legitimate to run topicality
>foreign
>policy along with cultural imperialism? Is it abusive to force the
>affirmative
>to concede the kritik to prove topicality or vice-versa, or is it just a damn
>good strategy? As I understand it, you are debating on two different levels
>to
>leave the affirmative no way to win. Maybe it is a good strategy, but isn't
>it
>intellectually dishonest?
Based on the way you're explaining it, I'd point out the contradiction to the
judge (if they weren't hypo testing) and drop both arguments. Or, if it was a
hypo tester I'd b.s. my way through T and run cultural imperialism good.
Matt Singer
Billy Pilgrim
> dichotomy for the sole purpose of winning the debate round.
>
> Think about it this way: a kritik makes an almost categorical contention
> that a certain type of discursive method is evil and should be rejected.
In
> the case of cultural imperialism, you're contending that the Aff sets
Russia
> up as "foreign" by reading Dalby or someone, and claiming that this is
> ethnocentric or something. Then you turn around and do the same thing. So
> not only are you being ethnocentric, you're doing it purposefully while
> purporting that it's wrong, while the Aff probably had no clue they were
> committing an evil act.
See, it all depends on what you consider a "kritik" to be. I'm very much
of the opinion that there are almost entirely seperate arguments which are
likely to fall within the same category of "kritiks" when one generalizes.
For example:
1. affirmative team says a racist word in advocating a racist policy
negative runs "racism critique" against them, saying that racism is immoral
and that words which are said and things which are advocated are speech
acts which shape the way we think.
2. affirmative team uses a foreign policy arena to establish their
interpretation of the topic
negaitve team runs "realism criticism" against them, saying that foreign
policy ideology is fundamentally flawed and disastrous. policies enacted
through the cracked lens of Realism are, at best, neutral, and likely to be
disastrous. solvency would then be indeterminate at best and turned at
worst.
both of these arguments are going to get labelled "kritiks" by every person
on here. but it is utterly absurd to say that they make the same argument,
or should be handled the same way.
the first presents a moral statement. the second simply criticizes the
affirmative plan from the second level of analysis.
they are as different as a hammer and a slide-rule, my friends.
for the second criticism, this accusation of "hypocrisy" is absurd. the
criticism is not normative. it does not state that the usage of realist
discourse is a normative evil that must be rejected. it simply states that
the nature of the realist doctrine is fundamentally incoherent and wrong.
this is a questioning of their assumptions, which, if i win, simply denies
the affirmative at the most basic level. if they win a defense of realism,
what do they want, a friggin' cookie? all we do is go on to the realist
debate if that's the case.
any one who claims otherwise is going to have to do some serious explaining
as to the nature of negation theory...
now, as for the 1st type of argument... the normative argument. i don't
even know if i agree in all cases that asking the affirmative to be topical
and running a kritik of topical assumptions is hypocritical. my thoughts
on that are still out. i haven't really considered the issue very much
since i tend to stay as far away as possible from that sort of debate these
days (bad experiences in the past, you know).
convince me, someone...
> First: you diminish the power of the kritik. All kritiks. You're
implicitly
> claiming that "it's bad for them to be immoral, but I can do whatever I
> like." When that happens, there's no more moral responsibility. What the
> point of morality anymore?
okay. this is true if i really am being hypocritical. but am i? if, as
the negative, i say that the resolution is immoral. the affirmative team
came to this tournament to defend that resolution. by showing up to the
round, they are here in support of that resolution. if foreign policy is
inherently patriarchial, why is it a bad thing for the negative to win a
round because of it? why does the affirmative get to step out of their
resolutional boundaries if i run a kritik? what if i don't know? what if
i'm not sure whether or not the affirmative links to the kritik, or if
they're topical? must i force myself into a corner before the round even
starts?
> Second: well, it's obvious. Would you run a kritik attacking the other
team
> for being sexist and then use words like "mankind" and "bitch"? What kind
of
> person are you then? It's an analagous situation.
i agree. but i don't think it's analagous.
> It's much different than running a DA and a T violation to get the Aff to
> concede to one. You're making a moral contention of some sort and then
> violating it. A wise Aff would just say (given the correct round, and
this
> is what I'd do), "yeah, I violate the T, but that means I meed that
kritik,
> and since that's more important, I win. furthermore, they lose, because
they
> ran the kritik and then they violated it. end of story."
why doesn't this mean the negative wins? the resolution has been negated,
right? the only reason the affirmative might win is if you win some sort
of "hypocrisy" argument. but why can't topicality just be a test? just
because the kritik functions as a moral argument (if in fact it
does--ultimately, i think it's disempowering for the REAL normative kritiks
to force ALL kritiks to be moral arguments), why doesn't topicality exist
merely to see if the affirmative has violated that kritik?
why must topicality be a disciplinary thing? perhaps i just ran it to make
sure i was making a substantiated moral claim on the kritik. maybe i was
just wondering what the affirmative actually did...
like i said, my mind is not made up on these questions. but i think if
nothing else, you really ought to resolve them before you grant that you're
non-topical...
in the end, i don't think ANY totalizing view of reality is correct. i
believe that kritiks *should* have moral aspects, but not in EVERY case,
realism being a prime example. to do otherwise would inconsequentialize
the argument. realism really DOESN'T make a moral claim, but it's more
than your run-of-the-mill solvency argument. where's the middle ground, my
friends?
so that's me. and please, don't anyone read into this and assume that i
mean it's OKAY to violate a moral claim. that is the EXACT anti-thesis to
all that i've said. if that's what you think i said, read it again,
please...
Charles Olney
Oak Harbor, WA
Living my life forever with the memory of Julia Burke and all that she
could have been. Your bright star snuffed too soon, my only goal now is to
honor your life by living my own. We all loved you, Julia.
Ms Em 49
>dichotomy for the sole purpose of winning the debate round.
THANK YOU SO MUCH! That's what i said, but we still lost. See, the negative
ran a topicality violation that had this obscure foreign policy definition. To
meet the T violation, we would have to link ourselves to the cultural
imperialism kritik. I shouted abuse, but they just claimed it was good
strategy. And this is the best part - they cross-applied two of our arguments
from T in the 2NR to the kritik and said downright "They must concede one to
get out of the other." They completely proved everything I had said, but the
judge still voted for them. I just wanted to make sure I was correct in
thinking that they were being quite abusive.
M. Williams
> OK, for all you theory geniuses out there - what is your opinion on running a
> stock issue problem with a kritik?
I don't agree that there can be a "stock issue problem" with any argument.
Stock issues are tools used to describe and simplify the analysis of many
issues, they shouldn't be issues in and of themselves. Thus, I think one could
argue that a case is flawed at some level (with stock issues). I say if the
kritik is not violated by the other arguments there is nothing wrong with
running those arguments together. I think if there is a performative
contradiction you should be crusified.
> Is is legitimate to run topicality foreign
> policy along with cultural imperialism?
Depends what your T argument is and what your K link is.
> Is it abusive to force the affirmative
> to concede the kritik to prove topicality or vice-versa, or is it just a damn
> good strategy?
First, which of the arguments, topicality or the kritik, is a priori? Second,
the affirmative doesn't necessarily have to conceed one of the arguments. They
aff could take out the link, turn the K, etc. The aff could also
counter-define on T to get out of the violation. I dno't think the strategy
you outline is abusive because you can't force the aff to conceed either
argument.
> As I understand it, you are debating on two different levels to
> leave the affirmative no way to win. Maybe it is a good strategy, but isn't
it
> intellectually dishonest?
I think the affirmative should have to defend itself on all levels and against
all alternatives. I think the affirmative should be able to debate on those
two levels. You make the assumption that the affirmative can't debate on those
two levels at once when there are quite a few ways they can (I in no way came
even close to all the strategies against people who run T to get a K or DA
link). I don't think it's intellectually dishonest as long as there's no
performative contradiction.
Matthew Williams
Bonneville Debate
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Robert
> > leave the affirmative no way to win. Maybe it is a good strategy, but
isn't
> it
> > intellectually dishonest?
>
> I think the affirmative should have to defend itself on all levels and
against
> all alternatives. I think the affirmative should be able to debate on those
> two levels. You make the assumption that the affirmative can't debate on
those
> two levels at once when there are quite a few ways they can (I in no way came
> even close to all the strategies against people who run T to get a K or DA
> link). I don't think it's intellectually dishonest as long as there's no
> performative contradiction.
>
> Matthew Williams
> Bonneville Debate
> Idaho Falls, Idaho
Hey, I actually agree with Matt again. I'll go one further, I don't even think
it is that good of a strategy. You think you are making them concede one or
the other, actually you are giving them the choice of which to go for. Because
both of these is presumably going to be out in INC, they can look at their
frontlines, and decide, "Do we go for the Kritik and win on the turn, or do we
go for T and beat the Kritik straight up."
Now, another similar method of trickery is to run a disad in the IN to lock in
their story then run a counterplan or new DA in the 2N when they have little
ability to maneuver. Since you have the ability to wait, you can lock them in.
Example: run a weak softline DA to get their hardline turns then run a
hardline after granting out the first DA. Now they can't run softline turns in
the 1AR.
Rob
Robert
Ms Em 49 <mse...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981209233902...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
NOPE. All they are saying is that you have to take a stand about one of these
positions. Obviously, they contradict which in this case means that one is
right and the other is wrong. You have to take a stand on one and argue it
outright. Now the cool part here is that the time tradeoff is yours, since you
can grant out a lot and spend your time on the impact level. For example, you
can say "we ARE topical and yeah that gets the link to the Kritik, however, no
big deal because the kritik is flawed...which is why the two can't coexist."
Or you can say, "We don't get the Kritik because we are nontopical, of course,
T isn't a voting issue and especially since they ran a kritik which itself
would be A Priori." They are trying to pin you down but they are giving you
the choice about your final story...you SHOULD be prepared and forced to at
least argue one of the two positions and they are giving you a freebie on the
other just to lock you in to a debate so you don't change your story or slip
out the back by claiming not to link etc.
I'll give you an example of a similar situation: I was debating this team that
was running legalize prostitution many years ago. They were famous for waiting
until you ran a feminism DA and straight link turning it the other way...If you
ran Fem Good, they said prostitution increased it and if you ran Fem Bad they
said Prostitution killed it. Everyone thought they were being squirrelly but
we decided they were playing straight because no one had tried to pin them
down. So we ran a Fem bad disad in the INC except that we purposefully put it
at the bottom and stopped with the internal link card, no other impacts...when
cross examined about the impacts we fervently stuck with the answer that the
case increased feminism and that WAS the impact. Now they could have granted
the link or done takeouts and attacked the (very weak) impact level. Instead
they ran 12 link turns saying they stopped feminism, we granted the DA and used
their turns as links to the OTHER DA. Now they couldn't run the link turns and
win the impacts, and we had a straight up impact round where the link was
clearly stated by the aff team 12 times. And of course, all of the 2NC to
extend impacts on the "new" disad, which made it nearly impossible for the 1AR
to go card for card.
Those were the days my friend,
Rob
Brian Ward
Billy Pilgrim <ol...@oakharbor.net> wrote in article
<74ngma$n1g$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
> for the second criticism, this accusation of "hypocrisy" is absurd. the
> criticism is not normative. it does not state that the usage of realist
> discourse is a normative evil that must be rejected. it simply states
that
> the nature of the realist doctrine is fundamentally incoherent and wrong.
> this is a questioning of their assumptions, which, if i win, simply
denies
> the affirmative at the most basic level. if they win a defense of
realism,
> what do they want, a friggin' cookie? all we do is go on to the realist
> debate if that's the case.
>
> any one who claims otherwise is going to have to do some serious
explaining
> as to the nature of negation theory...
>
> now, as for the 1st type of argument... the normative argument. i don't
> even know if i agree in all cases that asking the affirmative to be
topical
> and running a kritik of topical assumptions is hypocritical. my thoughts
> on that are still out. i haven't really considered the issue very much
> since i tend to stay as far away as possible from that sort of debate
these
> days (bad experiences in the past, you know).
>
> convince me, someone...
Okay, Charles, I'll try. In this instance I see absolutely no
contradiction, simply because by running the topicality you aren't saying
that being culturally imperialistic is a good thing. And why should the
resolution be free of problems? I guess this gets back to the whole
argument wether topic-wide kritiks are a good thing. But that's another
issue. All I'm saying is that the aff is going to have to defend their
case. And if that case has to fall under a resolution which is culturally
imperialistic, then the affirmative should damn well be prepared to show
that their case is not (or that cultural imperialism is a good thing, which
I don't understand how that could be but I noticed somebody on this ng
advocating it). It's really no different than running a generic disad
along side T- the aff should be able to answer it. Now I know the response
to this will be that with kritiks its different because you have a "moral
obligation," but as Charles pointed out kritiks are a lot more complex then
that. The only possible contradiction would be if the link to the kritik
didn't go beyond "foreign policy is culturally imperialist," under which
circumstances the topicality would take out the link to the kritik, but
there's no double turn and the aff is still non-topical.
A question for Seth and the others who think the two arguments contradict:
what should the affirmative do? If the resolution is going to link to a
kritik of some sort, then
should the affirmative get to stray from the resolution? Should I be able
to run a plan to save penguins just because I believe that is the most
moral case available?
Brian
Tualatin
Brian Ward
Robert <lawren...@ionet.net> wrote in article
<01be2416$a2e74ae0$7d68c126@default>...
That reminds me of a "shifty J" argument that I heard some Oak Harbor team
used to run on the immigration topic. It was a Justification position
about how the affirmative has to justify its immigration stance (or
something along those lines) with a little blip on the bottom, which is
hidden well, as to why immigration is racist. When the inevitable "we
meet- we justify immigration" answer came, 2NC was racism impacts. Good
way to win a racism debate without the other team actually making racist
rhetoric or without some kind of magic counterplan which solved for it (as
long as the aff had never heard of it). Of course, I could be mixing the
story up. Charles??
Brian
Tualatin
Robert
> A question for Seth and the others who think the two arguments contradict:
> what should the affirmative do? If the resolution is going to link to a
> kritik of some sort, then
> should the affirmative get to stray from the resolution? Should I be able
> to run a plan to save penguins just because I believe that is the most
> moral case available?
>
> Brian
> Tualatin
>
In college debate I have heard people do exactly this. A team ran a rape
counseling case on a media topic (I think) that they claimed in the 1AC was
morally bankrupt. The Normative paradigm justified their actions as moral and
they should look to a moral case and should not lose because the resolution is
inherently flawed. Neg has few choices...they have to debate the theory of the
aff Kritik because case neg is impossible. They grant topicality and just go
for the argument that the paradigm debate comes before A Priori issues (which I
think is legit because the paradigm debate certainly would alter the outcome of
the T debate). It was darn hard to do anything but whine. I think we usually
just ran our aff case as a possible option on the topic that didn't cause the
aff kritik and then we get to defend against the K as if we were aff...If we
can show that the topic isn't flawed inherently or that the flaw isn't real
then they lose on T. Of course, this is exactly the debate they wanted...it
stunk. Later, they even went for a moral superiority position...even if the
res. isn't flawed, the aff case is still a better thing to do even though it
has nothing to do with the topic...at this point I just advocated dumping the
topic altogether and ran backfile counterplans that were irrelevant to the aff
case, the resolution, etc. Just whoever is the most moral wins.
It just got stupid fast.
Sadly, this team was one of the more competitive teams in the country at the
time.
Rob
Billy Pilgrim
team
> used to run on the immigration topic. It was a Justification position
> about how the affirmative has to justify its immigration stance (or
> something along those lines) with a little blip on the bottom, which is
> hidden well, as to why immigration is racist. When the inevitable "we
> meet- we justify immigration" answer came, 2NC was racism impacts. Good
> way to win a racism debate without the other team actually making racist
> rhetoric or without some kind of magic counterplan which solved for it
(as
> long as the aff had never heard of it). Of course, I could be mixing the
> story up. Charles??
yes. back in the day when oak harbor made bad arguments. we don't do that
any more.
shifty j is stupid.
POTATO
charles olney
oak harbor
Joker
<snip because my news service won't let me post-- "too much quoted text" or
some shit>
>See, it all depends on what you consider a "kritik" to be.
<snip>
>2. affirmative team uses a foreign policy arena to establish their
>interpretation of the topic
>negaitve team runs "realism criticism" against them, saying that foreign
>policy ideology is fundamentally flawed and disastrous. policies enacted
>through the cracked lens of Realism are, at best, neutral, and likely to be
>disastrous. solvency would then be indeterminate at best and turned at
>worst.
<snip>
>for the second criticism, this accusation of "hypocrisy" is absurd. the
>criticism is not normative. it does not state that the usage of realist
>discourse is a normative evil that must be rejected. it simply states that
>the nature of the realist doctrine is fundamentally incoherent and wrong.
>this is a questioning of their assumptions, which, if i win, simply denies
>the affirmative at the most basic level. if they win a defense of realism,
>what do they want, a friggin' cookie? all we do is go on to the realist
>debate if that's the case.
Yeah, there are many different kinds of kritiks. It is a complex beast to be
sure. I agree with your basic point, but I think that your contention that a
criticism of realism is an argument bereft of normative or moral impetus is
somewhat flawed. I'd argue that realism is a grossly ethnocentric method of
stereotyping entire countries. Seriously, to use the term "Russia" and to
base all political action upon some vague conception of the nebulous
cartographic body known as "Russia" is to ignore and (in a sense) homogenize
a rich ethnic diversity in a very large and interesting country. I don't
think that realism is just a "solvency turn" by any means. If that's all it
is, I think it's a pretty poor solvency turn.
I guess I view kritiks of realism differently than Charles does. I see it
more along the lines of statism, in a way. I think that if you were to run
statism and then say the aff had to be "government to government" that would
be a contradiction. Same thing with realism. At the very least they do
contradict.
But yes: some kritiks are different than others, that's true. I do think,
however, that in the original example of a cultural imperialism kritik
conflicting with a "foreign" T violation the analysis was very sound. Moving
on...
>now, as for the 1st type of argument... the normative argument. i don't
>even know if i agree in all cases that asking the affirmative to be topical
>and running a kritik of topical assumptions is hypocritical. my thoughts
>on that are still out. i haven't really considered the issue very much
>since i tend to stay as far away as possible from that sort of debate these
>days (bad experiences in the past, you know).
I don't think that's really the case at hand. It's not a matter of running
kritiks that link to resolution and then asking the affirmative to be
topical. Once again, the original contradiction. A cultural imperialism
kritik makes a very definite normative moral claim about differentiating
between cultures, setting up "Self"s and "Other"s and all that. Then to turn
around and mandate that the Aff meet a term such as "foreign", which is
exactly what the kritik says you shouldn't so-- I think that's pretty evil.
Why not just run the T violation? At least then the term is indeterminate,
you're not making a juridical claim about it.
<snip>
>okay. this is true if i really am being hypocritical. but am i? if, as
>the negative, i say that the resolution is immoral. the affirmative team
>came to this tournament to defend that resolution. by showing up to the
>round, they are here in support of that resolution. if foreign policy is
>inherently patriarchial, why is it a bad thing for the negative to win a
>round because of it? why does the affirmative get to step out of their
>resolutional boundaries if i run a kritik? what if i don't know? what if
>i'm not sure whether or not the affirmative links to the kritik, or if
>they're topical? must i force myself into a corner before the round even
>starts?
Not at all. Just don't use language (worse yet- don't tell the Aff the
*must* use language) that you're contending is evil.
>> Second: well, it's obvious. Would you run a kritik attacking the other
>team
>> for being sexist and then use words like "mankind" and "bitch"? What kind
>of
>> person are you then? It's an analagous situation.
>
>i agree. but i don't think it's analagous.
In the case of cultural imperialism, I think it is, just like with a racism
kritik, a nuclearism kritik, etc.
>> It's much different than running a DA and a T violation to get the Aff to
>> concede to one. You're making a moral contention of some sort and then
>> violating it. A wise Aff would just say (given the correct round, and
>this
>> is what I'd do), "yeah, I violate the T, but that means I meed that
>kritik,
>> and since that's more important, I win. furthermore, they lose, because
>they
>> ran the kritik and then they violated it. end of story."
>
>why doesn't this mean the negative wins? the resolution has been negated,
>right?
I think that at the point you run a kritik (I'm assuming a morality kritik
here) you're pretty much rejecting the idea that a negation of the
resolution is the sole way to win the round. After all, fiat is illusory.
Even if the neg wins everything, I think that a moral conrtadiction warrants
a vote in any case, assuming it exists.
<snip>
>why doesn't topicality exist
>merely to see if the affirmative has violated that kritik?
>
>why must topicality be a disciplinary thing? perhaps i just ran it to make
>sure i was making a substantiated moral claim on the kritik. maybe i was
>just wondering what the affirmative actually did...
I think T is pretty disciplinary just based upon the way it's phrased.
There's discursive boundary ("interpretation" or "definition"), which the
Affirmative doesn't fit into. In fact, they "violate" it! They must be
punished! "Voter!" "Voter!" T is a discursive tool, a normalizing device.
When you run a T violation, you're making a normative contention about
language ("this is what the word means, this is why it should mean that")
and claiming that the Affirmative must prove they meet that discursive model
or they should be punished. I think it's pretty clear.
>like i said, my mind is not made up on these questions. but i think if
>nothing else, you really ought to resolve them before you grant that you're
>non-topical...
Yeah, well, you need an ideal situation. If I had the right judge and the
other team told me in CX that K o/w T, I'd do it in a second.
<snip snip>
Seth Poulos
Ashland Debate
The Army of the 12 Monkeys
Joker
>what should the affirmative do? If the resolution is going to link to a
>kritik of some sort, then
>should the affirmative get to stray from the resolution? Should I be able
>to run a plan to save penguins just because I believe that is the most
>moral case available?
What a ridiculous false dilemma!
Whatever case you run is going to violate some kritik or another. It'll
violate Realism Good. If not, it'll violate Realism Bad. Same thing with
Deterrence Good/Deterrence Bad if you even touch the nuclear debate. There's
two sides to every issue. Run the case that you think is the most moral,
that's all there is to it. I would never run "do NATO" or "do BMD"-- they're
just fuckin' evil. That's all there is to it. I run the most topical case I
can think of, and it doesn't link to any kritiks except maybe Realism Good
(gee, that's a real hard debate to win).
This is like saying that you should decide what case you should run because
of T. It's just fucking stupid. Language is not a categorical object. Langue
is totally arbitrary, infintely mutable. It's never decided until you
actually walk out of the round, and then only by how good a debater you are,
not whether it was true or not.
The question is not whether or not your case is topical. That's a dumb
question. Neither is the question whether or not your case links to the
kritik. That's also a dumb question. It's merely an issue of how good a
debater you are. Can you win T? Can you win the kritik?
Asking whether the Affirmative should "stray from the resolution" because of
"the kritik" is ludicrous. There's no such thing as "the" kritik. Neither is
a kritik (in the cases I assume we're talking about) just a strategic tool,
as this argument seems to frame them. If this kritik happens to be a moral
argument in which you believe, then by all means "stray." Better that than
be a moral hypocrite. Go as far as you can while remaining withing your
topicality-debating skills. Maybe argue that the "kritik impacts" of the
case outweigh T, whatever that means. The point is that it's not a matter of
what you're "allowed" to do, as Brian just framed it. It's a matter of what
you should do/what to do balanced against what you can do.
But if your rationale is "oh no, I better not run this case, it links to
normativity," (or insert the title of any kritik in the preceding sarcastic
statement) then: get a life. Run your damned case.
This isn't the difficult question that everyone makes it out to be. It's a
false dilemma. No kritik links to everything (except maybe norm). And you
shouldn't decide what case you run solely on the basis of "what links to
this"? Run what you want to run, and what you can win. Reconcile that
somehow and stop whining.
Jodupo
>foreign
>policy along with cultural imperialism? Is it abusive to force the
>affirmative
>to concede the kritik to prove topicality or vice-versa, or is it just a damn
>to
>leave the affirmative no way to win. Maybe it is a good strategy, but isn't
>it
>intellectually dishonest?
>
Well, it depends on what kind of kritik it is. A discourse kirtik could be run
independent of T. (Ex: you can construct Russia as a threat even though your
not really doing anything towards them, you're just claiming that you are.)
In that paticular situation (f.p. T and cultural imperialism) the germaness of
the K pretty much requires that there be something done towards Russia.
----:)Joe Pollak
Booker T. Washington
Tulsa, OK
ebr...@mixcom.com
>
> >Yeah, it is. It's downright evil. You're creating a sort of moralistic
> >dichotomy for the sole purpose of winning the debate round.
You're wrong. It's good staregy to a point. If the topic is foriegn
poilcy and foreign policy, for example the spanos argument I run,
oversimplifies the interaction of billions of people into a grid and
inherently fails, and plan is fp that means whether or not we change fp
it's going to be bad, so the answer to the question "Should the US sub
change fp toward Russia?" is an i don't know. If the answer isn't yes
that means the affirmative loses. If the aff isn't fp then they lose;
even if that's true the K proves the resolution to be false: you lose.
Whether in the policy debate or the moralistic debate it is true then
the aff loses.
If the only link you can think of the T violation you probably aren't
really good, and you can beat them. If it isn't their only link then
you don't have to concede T, and you link anyway so there isn't that
dicotomy.
Whatever, the way to get out of that is to impact turn the K (specific
carded answers and make the argument you make a counter kritik; there
are cards about it too), make no link/perm answers and don't go for "we
meet" ans on T in the 1ar or don't make them in the first place, make
only a counter inpertretation, neg interp sucks, and T isn't a voter
answers. If the fp def is so obsure it probably provides a bad limit on
the topic and you can win just the counter interp.