[eDebate] Agents/States/False Dichotomy - "K" and "policy"

Massey, Jackie B. debate
Sat Apr 11 08:58:59 CDT 2009

The building blocks of ?anti-K? propaganda?.

Here is Ermo on what he calls the ?K?

7. I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of
impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these
problems. Although I think a lot of the K literature is very interesting and
important, in actual K debates judges often encourage clash avoidance (side
stepping through minimal distinctions), let people wiggle out of impact
turns, encourage new and hidden alternatives, allow implicit framework
arguments (like ?rep?s first?) to dramatically refocus the rounds, etc. The
generalized ambiguity about how K rounds are to be resolved leads to
considerable inconsistency from round to round. That inconsistency appears
to favor certain teams over others (which ones? It depends on the point of
view of the observer), and makes hyper specific strategies against
particular K?s ineffective, while they should be extremely effective. A more
positive spin on the same phenomenon would be ?when there are no rules, the
better debater always wins.? (which sounds fine, but it?s nice when the
weaker debater can sometimes win through hard work and preparation). In this
way, the post structural orientation of some K?s and many K friendly critics
tends to disincentivize K debating. (I would be happy to brainstorm friendly
solutions to this problem with anyone who shares my assessment in broad

I think this where people begin their misunderstanding of debate arguments that do not focus on passing a specific policy proposal from a traditional view of ?is the plan a good or bad idea??

This is where young debaters get pointed in the wrong direction in understanding the notion of debate ?arguments?.  They are all arguments.  This ?clash avoidance through minimal? distinction seems pretty popular on the ?states counter-plan? or most any other counter-plan strategy.   These things that you refer to as ?refocusing rounds? are justified through good evidence and historical examples.  What I am saying is these are arguments on why you don?t just look at ?does plan solve? to determine if the policy is good or bad.  Its really just all impact debate, and then getting a head start on why the decision calculus is/has/was failing.  Look where our world is at today. This idea of having tunnel vision and assuming that a limited decision calculus about ?is the policy a good or bad idea? has failed us.  Debate is reflexive of the real world.  Realism used to flourish in debate until so many became aware of its failure in IR leading to never ending wars, an economy that was so fat on invisible dollars that the air was going to bleed out at sometime, and we are lucky it has not popped completely.  This discussion is not irrelevant to current real world situations, but rather so relevant in how we need a new framework/lens/ideology/ whatever you want to call it, for looking at our policy decisions.  The narrow view of ?is the plan a good or bad idea? can only be a focus if you can justify why other thing should not be considered.  For many years ethics, values etc. were considered to not be important in policy making,  not just in debate but in the places where decisions are made for a statists response.

Its kinda like this, the other things  besides those things that  want to determine ?is the plan a good or bad idea?, control uniqueness.  The old methods have failed us.  We must not re-arm ourselves in debate or in the oval office with those failing ideologies.  Your files have to change.  No more reading ?realism good? on a framework debate.  You have lost uniqueness on this debate.  The ?realism bad? side controls uniqueness, all those things you say are good about ?realism? have proven to fail us in all areas.  Environment, economy, poverty, war?. Find one.

This is debate also.  You cannot continue to at face dismiss arguments that say our ?plan focus? is too narrow.  That is what all of these implicit framework arguments are, reasons why the traditional narrow framework has failed us.

A>	There is no divide, just arguments.
B>	The ?K? debaters control uniqueness on solvency and impacts, only a risk it can get better, the non-?K? framework has proven to fail us and did not cause the good things to occur their evidence wishes for.

If you made it another type of debate, then there would be a problem of not including "policy and government action for change".  

Your right Swampy, debate is not like it used to be.  We have to evolve, otherwise we are defending failing ideologies an philosophies.  WAR WAR WAR ? that?s our world right now, and that is a result of the many dominant debate ideologies that people think we need to strap ourselves down to in debate.  Let them disappear with the Core Motive Inherency and Minor Repairs. 

So I might agree that the resolution might be a problem, but it is doing really well as a stand in statue for the ideologies and values behind real-politik that is no longer credible or believable.



More information about the Mailman mailing list