3 ms·
> Often the only way to succeed is by reframing the stupid position you are supposed to argue for entirely, which appears to be what this is talking about. Win
by WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Often the only way to succeed is by reframing the stupid position you are supposed to argue for entirely, which appears to be what this is talking about.
Winning seems like a low-value goal here. Classroom simulations exist so students can be exposed to the reality of consequences and outcomes.
I feel better goals here would be how to immerse yourself in an unfamiliar/unwanted position and how to understand the dynamics of a scenario with competing, entrenched positions.
- RugnirViking 3y agoI agree! Which is why I think it's a shame that this is an activity where the best way to win is in fact to not do that at all :(
- ang_cire 3y agoWhat this article is leaving out is that you do need an extremely deep understanding of the opposing arguments to be a good K-debater. There are tons of tools to defeat Kritiks, and if all you can do as the K debater is say, "but thing bad", you won't actually win. On the contrary, there are a lot of non-K policy debaters who want to be able to parrot the same generics at each other each round, and they don't know how to engage with Ks precisely because they don't understand their own position well enough to argue why the basic assumptions it relies upon are the way they are (or aren't what the K is proposing they are).