homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:14 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
...what exactly do you mean by "a new framework"? You don't seem to be referring to the literal definition (an alternate mechanism for evaluating the round, like "discourse shapes reality.")
I pretty much am, but for a K debater a framework means more than that. It structures how issues should be viewed overall (not just in terms of weighing arguments), and that structure is used to inform how a decision is made in the round.

Isaiah wrote:
And if you were in a doctor's council because this is a celebrity—so she wants 10 opinions on what to do—and one person had made the Thetans argument, what language would you use to categorize your counter argument?

I'd say it'd be in the language of "that won't work, because Thetans don't exist and there are alternate superior explanations."

As long as we can agree on that, let's all call it whatever name we want It's the essence of one of the types of solvency, in my mind (structural).
You could make that argument, but it wouldn't be kritiking anything, it'd just be running a solvency that Thetans are not real. To kritik the Thetans, you'd have a thesis that scientology is a nonsensical compilation of science-fiction ideas. Framework would have some points about traditional medicine being the best way to find cures for problems, and scientology distorts your view of reality. Links that your solution relies on the truth of scientology, impacts that belief in scientology results in dehumanization of those who do not, because they are viewed as uninitiated and inferior, and dehum is the root of all violence. Alt is to reject scientology and use standard cures for PTSD.

Really, either method works, it's just whether you want a straight up debate or a k debate. (this is usually a strategic decision, how good are you straight-up/K compared to your opp)

MSD wrote:
But attacking the entire concept of Thetans is just further along on the systemicity continuum. Where does "specific solution" stop and "entire mindset" begin? It doesn't - it just gradually transitions.

NANO-SYSTEMIC: The technology in the filters doesn't work.
MICRO-SYSTEMIC: The filters won't be installed correctly due to workforce problems.
SYSTEMIC: The filters are attacking the wrong kind of pollution.
MEGA-SYSTEMIC: Attacking pollution at all is useless, containment just incentivizes more pollution.
ULTRA-SYSTEMIC: Technology is fundamentally destructive, we must Become One With Nature.
LUDICROUSLY SYSTEMIC: Reality doesn't exist, proposing solutions at all just discourages us from realizing that and being Enlightened.

At what point does this go from being a solvency argument to being a kritik? (Bearing in mind that, whatever step you pick, I can come up with an intermediary step that is even trickier to distinguish. )

(P.S. For ZaR, note that all of these options on the continuum have implied alternatives - ranging from "don't do that, then" to "stop believing reality exists.")
Starting with the end, they may all have implied alternatives, but for the k, the alternative is more than just you don't want to do that bad thing, it's on a larger scale, which follows from the impacts-more on that in a bit.

I don't think the scale is really the right way to find the brightline. It's not "how systemic is the argument". It's whether the argument is claiming that you misunderstand THIS problem, or whether you misunderstand ALL problems. In the air filters, it's not a K to just say the problem is in the water. The K would be saying that air filters would never work, no matter where pollution is coming from, and continuing to try only makes things worse. In theory, there could be a scale of how much ALL is meant, but it should be easy in any specific argument to look at the impacts and see if they exist because of what you do to this problem or what your (claimed) mindset would cause in any situation. So, as I was saying above, the impacts are on a different scale from a DA/solvency, which is what makes the alternative of a K fundamentally different than the implied alt of a DA. K alts also can get pretty crazy to have better solvency, for example a classism K might have an alt "The people in this room will reject the plan and live simply, to express solidarity with the poor". Basically, the alt has a more important role than just stating the obvious of avoiding the impact.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
To kritik the Thetans, you'd have a thesis that scientology is a nonsensical compilation of science-fiction ideas. Framework would have some points about traditional medicine being the best way to find cures for problems, and scientology distorts your view of reality. Links that your solution relies on the truth of scientology, impacts that belief in scientology results in dehumanization of those who do not, because they are viewed as uninitiated and inferior, and dehum is the root of all violence. Alt is to reject scientology and use standard cures for PTSD.


That's just a developed solvency argument.

Most arguments, in fact, have links, frameworks, and alts. Just so often assumed that they aren't spelled out.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Quote:
To kritik the Thetans, you'd have a thesis that scientology is a nonsensical compilation of science-fiction ideas. Framework would have some points about traditional medicine being the best way to find cures for problems, and scientology distorts your view of reality. Links that your solution relies on the truth of scientology, impacts that belief in scientology results in dehumanization of those who do not, because they are viewed as uninitiated and inferior, and dehum is the root of all violence. Alt is to reject scientology and use standard cures for PTSD.


That's just a developed solvency argument.

Most arguments, in fact, have links, frameworks, and alts. Just so often assumed that they aren't spelled out.
Solvency is defensive, this has obvious offensive components. I don't see how it's any more similar than solvency and a DA, and really less since a DA is still operating only on the scale of the plan, while a kritik changes the scale of the round. I don't usually say someone's plan is the root of all violence when I'm running a solvency.

As far as most arguments having implied links, frameworks, alts, that's sort of true, but a K needs to directly lay them out because they are fundamentally important to the success of the K. You can lose if you have a bad framework/alt, which probably isn't true for an argument where the framework/alt are implied.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:11 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
ZaR wrote:
I don't think the scale is really the right way to find the brightline. It's not "how systemic is the argument". It's whether the argument is claiming that you misunderstand THIS problem, or whether you misunderstand ALL problems.
The problem is, "misunderstanding ALL problems" is exactly the continuum I'm referring to:

NANO-SYSTEMIC: Misunderstands all applications of this particular technology.
MICRO-SYSTEMIC: Misunderstands all applications of installing technology at this factory.
SYSTEMIC: Misunderstands all applications of solving pollution at this factory.
MEGA-SYSTEMIC: Misunderstands all applications of solving pollution.
ULTRA-SYSTEMIC: Misunderstands all applications of technology.
LUDICROUSLY SYSTEMIC: Misunderstands reality.

ALL solvency arguments have a scope of application; your "post-fiat kritiks" just have a much larger scope than conventional solvency arguments. I think you accept this, given that you said:
ZaR wrote:
. . . the impacts are on a different scale from a DA/solvency, which is what makes the alternative of a K fundamentally different than the implied alt of a DA.
The problem is that the difference is not "fundamental" at all. It's just... bigger. Sure, most of the time it looks sufficiently different that thinking of it as something else is natural, but there's no single point in the continuum where it suddenly switches from being a solvency argument to being a kritik.

(If you think I'm wrong, then present such a point.)

Without an actual brightline, referring to systemic solvency arguments as "kritiks" confuses the issue (given that there is already a very unique, distinct type of argument that goes by that name.) They would better be described as merely a different flavor of solvency.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
You misunderstand what I mean. When I say it's a different scale, I don't mean it's far bigger/smaller, I mean it's not on the same scale, they can't be compared. Determining whether it's a K or solvency is not some scale of how systemic something is, but whether the argument is attacking your plan because IT fails due to using a bad system, or because of the simple fact that it uses the flawed system. So, the systemic solvency says you try to solve a problem with a flawed system, here's why that flaw makes your plan fail. The kritik says you use a flawed system, here's why it's flawed, you should lose the round because it's a bad system. So, on your scale, they could all be either a K or a solvency. The first 3 are better suited to solvency (because your "system" is pretty local to the case), the last 3 to kritik (they take a larger view of the system aff is using). It's the warrants and the reasoning used to make the argument that makes it a K. Does the argument win by showing a problem with a plan in a system, or a problem with a system? That's the difference.

A few brightlines:
1. offense vs defense. solvency is by nature defense. Ks are by nature offense. Their entire structure and reasoning is based on this. I think this has been mentioned a few times already.
2. How do you win the arg? By showing the aff impacts are false, or showing the aff's system causes your impacts.
3. This is partly included in the first two, but does the argument matter beyond saying aff can't solve? A kritik fundamentally takes the round beyond the scope of the plan in saying that the ballot should not be decided simply on the individual merits of the plan (can this plan solve the harms it claims and create a net benefit) but should be used to determine the best overall system for solving problems (or in some cases whether a problem-solving mindset is good). Even if that system could appear to be worse in this case.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
ZaR wrote:
So, the systemic solvency says you try to solve a problem with a flawed system, here's why that flaw makes your plan fail. The kritik says you use a flawed system, here's why it's flawed, you should lose the round because it's a bad system.
Bingo.

Scale #1 - When "flawed system" just explains why the plan won't work, that's solvency. (Or a disadvantage, if it's offense.)
Scale #2 - When "flawed system" is an independent voter by itself, that's a kritik.

Fair enough? OK, logic time:

1. Post-fiat arguments, by definition, concern whether the plan works. Only Scale #1 concerns whether the plan works. Therefore, all post-fiat arguments are on Scale #1.
2. Kritiks are not on Scale #1.
3. Therefore, kritiks are not post-fiat.

In other words, the description you gave for kritiks is pre-fiat by definition.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I don't buy that "solvency is by nature defense".

Not only has it been thought a "stock" issue worth casting decision upon (therefore offense) for a long time, but it comes in various flavors, some of which constitute "offense".

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Calling it defensive is not the same as calling it weak. It's just saying a solvency take out is a take out, and not a turn. They're distinct moves. Solvency is a winning argument when it persuades the judge to vote negative, and reasonable debate minds can differ on what the threshold for that ought to be, but mid-debate, the only thing the debaters know is whether the argument is a partial or complete take-out, or a turn. Winning kritiks either render the entire chain of premises from harm to solvency absurd, or they turn solvency, or both at once. The former approach probably hits right on the line between defense and offense, but the latter is clearly offense in a way that solvency take outs are not.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited