Presentation on theme: "Put the K in debate. Challenges the assumptions of the aff Similar to a cp in it’s function and purpose Offers an alternative that corrects the."— Presentation transcript:
Put the K in debate
Challenges the assumptions of the aff Similar to a cp in it’s function and purpose Offers an alternative that corrects the flawed assumptions of the aff Generally does not involve government action
Epistemology-study of knowledge Ontology-study of being Deontology-morality based on duty and obligation to rule Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest number Postmodernism-period of philosophy and academia, instability and uncertainty of meaning, critical of modern philosophy
Epistemology-study of knowledge How do we acquire knowledge? What qualifies as knowledge? What is the relationship between knowledge, belief, and truth?
Ontology-study of being sub branch of philosophy under metaphysics What actually exists? What does it mean to exist? What is the meaning of existence?
Deontology-morality based on duty and obligation to rule Categorical imperative The result of the action is less important than the justification and reason for acting
Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest number Most policy affs operate under a utilitarian framework
Postmodernism-period of philosophy and academia, instability and uncertainty of meaning, critical of modern philosophy Embraces new fields of study Psychology, science, sociology, etc.
Greater argument diversity Develops skills not used in traditional debate Still trips some teams up Talking about assumptions and justifications is important
Link Impact alternative
Links to the assumptions of the aff Aff reinforces X Aff props up X Aff engages in X
Perms of the K are essentially no link arguments Proves that plan action and alt are not mutually exclusive
Function similar to policy impacts, but vary in type extinction No value to life Ethics Dehumanization Systemic impacts
Non government action Rethink/withdrawal Change mindset/approach Somewhat abstract Requires strong explanation
Gateway issue Test the theoretical legitimacy of the aff Does the neg have to offer a competitive policy option? More judges are willing to let teams leverage than advantages than outright rejecting the k
Links and impacts are different Alternative Moves away from government action and consequentialism and focuses more on justification
Not the same as researching policy arguments Use primary sources Project muse and other academic search engines See what other authors right about the issue or author in question
Practice Understand the philosophy Understand the story write overviews Break it down in the same way you break down policy arguments
Role of the ballot K is a prerequisite Ethics first Root cause