3 ms·
Looks like you fell for the rage-bait! K's are not a free-pass to "start arguing about your favorite theme". If you run a K that doesn't link, you'll immediat
by ang_cire 3y ago
Looks like you fell for the rage-bait!
K's are not a free-pass to "start arguing about your favorite theme".
If you run a K that doesn't link, you'll immediately lose. If you run a K that links only loosely, you'll lose. If you run a K whose Alt doesn't solve for the K, you'll lose.
Ks are literally dependent on being related to the thing which they are run against. When it's a K-Aff, they must link to the Topic itself.
- galkk 3y agoThis is not how it is presented in the article, with examples like > Additionally, sometimes the affirmation side kicks off the debate by proposing a kritik — they don’t even bother advocating for the original resolution! And examples of the judges openly demonstrating their preference to kritiks and their arguments and way to present them.
- ang_cire 3y agoYes, because the article is, as I said, rage bait. It completely misrepresents how kritiks operate, and cherry-picks judge paradigms. There is nothing wrong with liking kirtiks anymore than liking any other type of argumentation, but the author doesn't like them, so they're trying to make it seem like they're bad, and thus so is liking them. There are FAR more paradigms out there where judges will say they don't want to hear Kritiks, especially K-Affs. > they don’t even bother advocating for the original resolution! There is no requirement that the debaters advocate for the resolution in most forms of debate; the author is trying to make it sound unusual, but that's extremely normal, and always has been.