RVI and the K by Connor Davis
Part I – Introduction
The RVI debate is an interesting and controversial debate in contemporary LD. Though personally, I am a believer of the RVI, this article will not serve to further any arguments in favor of it (for that, see Paras Kumar’s wonderful disclosure of our RVI Good prep on Vbriefly). Rather, I will work from the assumption that theory should be an RVI to justify the structural application of a defensive RVI for pre-fiat K debate.
Specifically, the conditions for a defensive RVI on a pre-fiat K should be if the accused shows no link or no abuse, such that no abuse includes you link and no impact. No impact can be proved either defeating the implication section of the K or by beating back the Role of the Ballot and articulating why the impact of the K doesn’t function under your framework.
The K is a peculiar argument. Rooted in critical philosophy rather than abstract philosophy, and usually concerned with racism, homophobia, sexism, and other instances of oppression. Ks seem to be a form of argumentation and discussion many debaters shy away from. Ironically, the first lesson they teach against Ks at camp is to not run generic “Ks Bad” theory—not just because it’s probably a silly abuse claim, but more pressingly, K debaters are more prepped and ready to win that debate. This seems to be a contradiction; K debaters seem to have significantly many more debates on theory than the substance of the K itself. This is exactly why merging theory and Ks together is helpful: it takes the K debater away from a layer they’re used to, while getting rid of the foreignness of a K.
Instead, today, we see almost a communal refusal to address the K. A striking example of this, in my opinion, is the success had by one K last year: Object Oriented Ontology K (OOO). This K, probably gibberish, won an absurd amount of rounds, representing truly the state of Ks our community has today. Though no doubt there are many great Ks debaters and even more great Ks, it also appears the K, for whatever reason, has become strategically little more than a conceded layer of offense. Then, the onus on the K debater becomes less of explaining the link, impact, and alternative, but more of weighing this conceded level of offense against others, of which, theory seems to be the most common.
Part II – Similarities
Listen to any K-theory debate, and you’ll without fail hear the argument “K before theory” and then correspondingly “theory before K.” Or are they on the same level? Whatever anyone says, at the heart of it, there are just two kinds of Ks: post-fiat and pre-fiat. Post-fiat Ks are essentially just counterplans with DAs. Pre-fiat Ks are essentially just theory shells. By that, I mean they are functionally and structurally analogous.
Pre-fiat Ks are analogous to theory shells in several ways. First, a theory shell at its base is a relation f(x) such that x ought to be a rule, i.e., x ought to be required (“the aff debater must specify an actor in an advocacy text”) or x ought to be forbidden (“the aff debater may not defend only aims of the resolution”). Ks are functionally the same thing. They hold, just like a theory shell, some aff practice ought to be forbidden (“neither debater may use sexist language”), or more weakly, required, as in Ks with links via omission.
Secondly, Ks have a structural correspondence to a theory shell. The interp corresponds to the alternative, the violation to the link, the standards to the impact, and the voter to the role of the ballot (if there is no role of the ballot, the “reject the aff” part of an alt could still correspond). If two things are structurally the same, then there is good reason to believe they are.
Finally, they are treated the same in round. When a K debate is substantial, there are a variety of arguments to be made. Take a cap K with a rejection alt for example. The 1AR could say no link (“no, I’m not capitalistic”), you link (“you’re also capitalistic”), impact turn (“capitalism good”), impact defense (“capitalism not bad”), turning the world of the alt (“passive rejection allows real world cap to remain strong”), perm (“the contradictions between my rhetoric and my advocacy are a net benefit”), or challenge the role of the ballot as a reason to vote aff down.
But these arguments also happen in a theory debate, take an actor spec shell with a standard of CP ground. The 1AR could say no link (“I meet”), you link (“You don’t have an actor”), impact turn (“CPs are bad”), impact defense (“CPs aren’t necessary”), turning the world of the alt (“the world where aff has to spec an actor is worse” –this is the counterinterp), or challenge the voter as a reason to vote the aff down. Perms can happen either when the counter-interpretation carves out parts of the original interpretation, or when someone points out the counter-interpretation isn’t competitive.
Part III – Implications
If Ks are essentially just theory shells, albeit worded a bit differently, should we treat them the same? Many would think that the RVI on Ks are unnecessary because K debaters would grant link turns and perms to an unconditional alt would be a reason to vote aff.
But if one starts from the already tenuous premise that theory is an RVI on I meets or no abuse, then this defensive K RVI needs no pragmatic justification, as Ks are theory. This could be strategic because if you are affirming against a K debater who will just concede a spike that theory is an RVI on I meets or no abuse because they assume they aren’t reading any theory, the 1AR could extrapolate theory to include Ks.
Even if you reject defensive RVI’s on theory, the generic warrants in favor of any RVI also support a defensive RVI on pre-fiat Ks. Let’s consider a few arguments in the RVI debate.
One of the most compelling reasons for an RVI on theory is to check no-risk issue theory for skewing time. Ks, too, moot the strategic value of the AC—especially when an opposing ROTB is read. Moreover, many argue that there shouldn’t be RVIs on I meets because if you meet you can quickly meet and move on. But with Ks, it usually is harder to delink than it is for obviously frivolous theory.
Some may say Ks are not no-risk, however, as you can turn the K, but A) usually the impact turn ground is pretty awful. I’m not going to impact turn a queer theory K; B) often link turn ground doesn’t exist by the strategic selection of the alternative; C) against many janky Ks like OOO or anthro, link turns are non-existent. The only real responses are “this is stupid and false” not that “the AC perception is key to stop extinction/oppression”; and D) the style in which Ks are presented now discourages these turns, as they are densely packed and spread, plus just nebulous enough to shift out of some turns in the 2NR. This is empirically the case, when in most every K round I’ve seen or participated in, the 1AR goes for preclusive issues or purely defensive arguments. When nobody responds to the K, it becomes a conceded layer of offense, i.e., a NIB.
But perhaps the best justification stems from the RVIs Bad argument that RVIs would collapse the round down to theory. Though many do not find any educational value in theory debates, surely K debaters do in K debates. So if their ROTB is correct, we should still have defensive K RVIs. I see this having two advantages. First, it prevents the strategic utility of reading some janky K and then layering the round, because those other layers would be irrelevant in the ballot story. Second, arguably the most important to critical education is what arguments are sexist/racist/homophobic/oppressive, and what would be a good solution—i.e., links and alts. With a defensive RVI on Ks, the round would be staked on the quality of the links and alts, increasing the importance of discussion of those two pieces. This could have a tremendous impact to discussing these issues as now it is necessary to develop a solid link and alternative, and actually strategic to go all in against the link or against the alt. Both quantity and quality of critical education seem like they would skyrocket, and, overall, the RVI would galvanize K debates to be more substantial, as non-K debaters and those without amazing backfiles have more incentive to engage in the K rather than up-layering.
Going further, an RVI on pre-fiat Ks could deter frivolous, jargon filled Ks. This is good because it prevents people from coopting the movement (like when bad NSD debaters last summer ran Wilderson), judges from dropping fine debaters, and debaters from running Ks for the sake of confusing or layering our the AC. Now debaters would have more of an incentive to prep out such Ks or learn what those words actually mean to the point that running them becomes less strategically viable when there is not a risk-free link story. Maybe if there were an RVI on pre-fiat Ks, then perhaps the aforementioned OOO K wouldn’t have been so successful.
Finally, I would like to clarify one issue about triggering the defensive RVI on Ks. Some would hold that it’s impossible to trigger the RVI based on a no link argument, because even if the aff responds to the link story, neg still has a risk of a link which, if neg also wins the ROTB, then only neg has risk of offense. First, it is good to point out that this is a paradigm that few judges hold, so this may not even be relevant. Second, I think for intents and purposes of triggering the RVI, there should be a certain threshold for no links. Near-zero chance of links should be treated as no link for all practical purposes, especially if one intends on capturing the benefits laid out in this article. Namely, because the best pragmatic justification in the article is for critical education, the risk of offense mentality probably undermines it because it pushes the ballot away from substance and the debater who more probably showed his side as true.
Part IV – Conclusion
All-in-all, motivated from noticing a structural and functional similarity between theory and Ks while also noticing a huge difference in the communal response, extending some features of theory to Ks could make a more consistent and quality debate. The conclusion of the defensive RVI on pre-fiat Ks can be reached in two ways: semantic by both starting from the premise theory is an RVI on I meets or no abuse and realizing the structural similarities between theory and Ks, and pragmatic based on the increase in fairness and critical education based on better K rounds on the issues more important to discuss. Though many people are ultimately bound to disagree with me, I think this is a position worth discussing further.
14 Comments
Justifying a defensive RVI against a kritik isn’t necessary. If the negative read the kritik to up-layer, say conditionality’s bad. If the NC was a 1-off kritik strategy and you win answers to the kritik, then you’ve already won the debate.
I think that the fact that condo bad is a decent response to kritiks that are thrown into the NC among a ton of other things that most likely contradict it is a critical difference between theory and Ks; “condo bad” isn’t under any circumstance a viable response to a theory shell, whereas under some circumstances it is one versus a K.
Hey thanks for the comment, Adam, I’ll get to your other one in a bit.
Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying in this comment, but it seems this doesn’t have much to do with the point of having a defensive RVI on Ks. Just because a defensive RVI might not be necessary if the NC only read a K, doesn’t mean that a defensive RVI in general is unnecessary. Even if you believe in the RVI for theory, if neg only reads a theory shell in the NC, the RVI is irrelevant. But even if the NC is a K and then some responses to the AC, the defensive RVI would allow the aff to win by going all in discussing the more important things in the link and the alt.
I don’t think condo bad is always a good or even able response. Sure, sometimes Ks will be in contradiction with the rest of the NC, but also a lot of the time, it won’t be. Also, shoehorning the 1AR to condo bad seems troubling not only because a) it probably won’t be strategic if the neg’s prepped on condo good and b) that’s the same issue that I raised at the top of the article, where 1AR’s just read theory against a K. From an educational standpoint, that’s probably suboptimal.
I hadn’t considered your point that Ks and theory are different because “condo bad” can be read against a K, but not a shell. I think it’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it shows a semantic difference. I think we as a community just have a default set of assumptions that theory interps are conditional and Ks have a status to be specified. How justified is this distinction we seem to have is, I don’t know, but it’s not because of a semantic difference, but a substantial one where theory is concerned more with fairness, education, or other constitutive elements of debate in the abstract, where pre-fiat Ks are more towards oppression type args in our world. But I think there is a limit to how conditional theory shells are, by that I mean “you bite” args seem to warrant a neg should lose if the NC has a shell that is in contradiction with the rest of the NC strat. That seems to be analogous to a “condo bad” arg for theory.
I wasn’t denying that a defensive RVI, in general, could make sense against a kritik. My point was that there are difficulties in applying it to a particular situation, one where the NC was a T shell and a kritik. Assuming the 1AR gets a defensive RVU on both layers, either we take the view that the 1AR has to win on both layers to win the debate, or that they can weigh one against the other and collapse to the layer that outweighs. If we take the former view, we don’t solve the problem you suggest about Ks that they can become NIBs (if you can’t weigh your offense on T against the K, the K is something necessary to answer but insufficient to win on because you still lose if you lose T). If we take the latter view, we don’t solve the problem you suggest about status quo K debates (that the 2NR focuses less on substance and more on “K outweighs theory”).
Solving that dilemma requires deciding whether we care more about the potential harms of NIBs than the potential harms of debates where a lot of time is devoted to “K outweighs theory.” I’m not terribly concerned with the harms of either of those, so I don’t know where I stand here yet. What I do know is that I don’t yet have a more general objection to a defensive RVI against a pre-fiat kritik.
real quick on your last point I think you can read condo bad against a theory shell it is just phrased a bit differently. Meta-theory that claims theory must be an RVI is essentially saying conditional theory is bad make it impossible for them to kick the shell because they lose if they do.
I feel that. While I don’t think that that meta-theory shell should be a voting issue on its own, I agree now that the 1AR has the option of indicting conditional theory (in terms of strategic considerations).
Another thought is:
Let’s say the NC was topicality + a kritik. I’ll grant that the warrants for a defensive RVI apply to the pre-fiat kritik layer as well, but do you believe that the aff can only win that debate by successfully answering both T and the K? If you believe that they can weigh those layers, we’ll still see the same “K outweighs theory” debates. There will definitely be aff debaters making the strategic choice to prioritize between layers, and neg debaters making the strategic choice to collapse to one of the two layers introduced in the NC. So, it will still hold true that:
“Then, the onus on the K debater becomes less of explaining the link, impact, and alternative, but more of weighing this conceded [or significantly less answered] level of offense against others, of which, theory seems to be the most common.”
The only way a defensive RVI for kritiks, in that situation, would minimize the occurrence of preclusive weighing is if the aff were required to answer both theory and the kritik equally well to win the debate. That makes both theory and the kritik a NIB for the aff, leading to the same thing you say is an issue, that the K becomes a NIB. (NOTE: I don’t really think NIBs are that bad; I’m just saying that I don’t think a defensive RVI is a catch-all solution to the kritikal variety of them, if they are bad.)
I see your situation similar to just one where the NC was 2 shells. There would still have to be weighing between which shell comes first, and definitely RVI’s feasibility on multiple shell debates is still confusing and messy. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have weighing between theory and Ks, just that the conception of weighing them like they are two separate layers and then which layer comes first is wrong. They are on the same layer. Perhaps weighing between T and a K will be like weighing between theory and T. Or in a number of other possible ways.
Strategy will always affect what we do in rounds, so having a defensive RVI on Ks will just affect the strategy of the respondent in a way which will encourage substantial K debate.
While I do not have the time to give this all the treatment it is due, I have a few general comments/clarifications.
First, it seems to me you homogenize how a pre-fiat kritik can structurally function in your analysis of the similarities between it and theoretical arguments. You seem to be speaking to a kritik that criticizes a discourse, i.e. a language based criticism. If you placed another example of a pre-fiat kritik into your structure it fails to account for the difference, at least in my mind. For example, if I were to read a kritik with a narrative about struggles relating to issues with wages in modern-capitalism, and link it to the affirmative by saying the affirmative is capitalist, and garner pre-fiat implications off of the discursive action of reading a narrative such as links to a pre-fiat role of the ballot. This isn’t the same as “drop the debater for being capitalist” like “drop the debater for using gendered language” seems to be. It is not a call to drop the affirmative debater for an action, it instead garners implications pre-fiat from the action taken by the negative in their framing and discourse related to the issue they criticize – the pre-fiat offense is based in the negations actions and not the affirmative’s actions and therefor is not analogous to theory.
Second is that this article seems to be shifting between concerns of critical education and strategic value. You say: “K debaters seem to have significantly many more debates on theory than the substance of the K itself. This is exactly why merging theory and Ks together is helpful: it takes the K debater away from a layer they’re used to, while getting rid of the foreignness of a K.”. This seems to me to frame the question not as how we can increase engagement with the questions of assumptions kritiks raise, but instead how we can make the K debate easier for the affirmative against negatives that have to deal with mostly ridiculous theory all the time. I don’t think a status-quo of theoretical answers to kritik’s which is both infuriating and petty is something we should give in to and attempt to frame our arguments around. We should instead be solidifying the divide between theory and the kritik. At the point in which we find theory and kritiks to be nearly the same, we start to see theoretical answers to the the kritik as substantive answers, which I would argue reverses any benefits gained from the critical education you talk about. You also discuss how K’s are seen as “foreign” and yet again it seems to me the Kritik is getting the shadowy “mean argument” light cast on it over and over again. Why is the failure for the community to make substantial arguments to kritik’s a reason that kritikal arguments should have to acquiesce to the communities faults (majority of the community it seems, that is)? We should enforce a norm of actually answering arguments instead of saying “this seems to lack substance” and throwing our hands in the air and creating a shift in the way those arguments are viewed in order to make it easier to respond to.
Thanks for the response Grant. To your first point, yes. You’re right. I am not referring to performance debate.
To your second point, excuse the rhetoric of that sentence you quote–the RVI on a K isn’t just trying to make the aff’s responding to a K easier. It seems to be that if the aff can win by refuting a link or alternate, then that would incentivize more and better discussion on those levels, which I think are the most important two parts of the issue.
I agree the squo response to Ks is pretty ridiculous, and that’s what I begin my article with. I don’t think that either recognizing the similarities between non-performance Ks and theory or allowing the aff to win by disproving a link or alternative would worsen the quality of Ks. I don’t see any justification to think that if we think of Ks and theory the same, then we’ll accept theoretical responses as substantive. If anything, I think it’ll provide easier access to substantive responses and better critical education, especially if the link hinges on the link and/or alt.
Finally, I just want to say I have nothing inherently against the K. I just find that a lot of the time Ks hide behind needlessly complicated rhetoric, jargon, and ideas, and I suppose that’s why they seem “foreign” or “mean.” And frankly, it just seems to be a fact that the community doesn’t respond to them. This doesn’t mean that Ks should stop being run, but perhaps it means we should try something different to how they’re being run. I don’t know how we could ever “enforce a community nrom of actually answering arguments,” but I do think that the defensive RVI on Ks has the potential to ease and encourage substantive response that seems to be very lacking in the squo.
On the first point, that makes more sense.
Second, I think my argument about theoretical responses as being substantive was a result of misunderstanding on my part.
Third, I agree that a lot of kritiks have a lot of weird jargon. As someone who reads a lot of critical-theory literature it seems that’s the nature of the beast when it comes to some of the literature bases. I’m curious as to if lack of response from the community in terms of kritiks is not a byproduct of kritiks, but instead the proliferation of theory. But that’s another argument for another day.
Thanks for the response Connor.
I think this is a pretty interesting thing to think about which can be not only strategic to AFFs against K’s but also for K debaters. You can take language K’s and put them into a theory shell e.g. A. interp: must not use gendered language b. violation C. standards: exlcusion and so forth. This would allow neg’s to avoid theory that is often read against K’s like must have post fiat alt which would make no sense against a shell. It also forces substantive applies because you can no longer have which comes first K vs theory debate if they are both theory.
Thanks for writing this article Connor. I completely agree with the premise and think that there should be some recourse against bad Ks. I have some concerns about treating the K as a theory shell and hopefully you can address them:
1. The first set of questions is based on the parallels between Ks and theory that you list out. I’m basing most of these on the problems that Ks have that we can more easily solve in the theory debate
a. The K alt vs the theory interp: You say Ks are a relation of a rule like “x ought to be required” just like theory and the interp corresponds to the alternative. While that seems fine in principle, looking at any K alt and comparing it to a theory interp would seem to contradict that since most Ks alts are way more vague (even ones that aren’t just reject alts), but community norms about what constitutes a legitimate theory interp are way more hashed out. If we treated Ks like theory and granted an RVI on a K, shouldn’t we also hold K’s to the same standard that we hold theory to?
I realize that this is the exact problem you point out with Ks, but how is it possible to punish K debaters on the same level as theory debaters when there isn’t even a proper interp or well articulated rule to run a hypothetical I meet of counter interp on in the first place (or rather their equivalents)? How do we establish a brightline for which Ks are theorylike enough that we can run an RVI? Also, given that Ks that have well thought out alts are the ones that are more legitimate, wouldn’t your strategy just work against Ks that are actually not frivolous and fail against the ones that have problems?
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that given how Ks are presently run, how can we run RVIs on them (since RVIs are based on only allowing debaters to run well articulated theory with legitimate abuse claims) given that pretty much all Ks fail the standards we hold for theory? Also, should this be a reason to give an RVI against Ks? If so, wouldn’t this make it too easy to win an RVI against most if not all Ks?
Just as a thought: If we treated Ks like theory and granted an RVI on a K, shouldn’t we also hold K’s to the same standard that we hold theory to? If we want to cut back on janky Ks, would requiring that Ks have an alternative text just like we require theory to have an interp and counterplans to have a text be a viable solution to that?
b. I think that the threshold for what’s frivolous is much higher with the K than with theory. While I’m not saying that this never happens, I have yet to see judges that are passionately against running Ks for purely strategic value as opposed to some judges and debaters who essentially think theory is the work of the devil.
c. Given that a lot of the problems inherent with all or at least most Ks make them frivolous, wouldn’t that raise the brightline for what triggers an RVI? Should it be similar to theory (to encourage better K writing), or should it be higher so as not to exclude too many Ks? What’s to stop debaters from running RVIs against every single K purely based on strategic value?
d. Should judges grant RVIs on Ks based on I meets (I guess link defense/turns) or only on counter interps? What would a counter interp even look like on the K level other than just attacking the alt?
2. You predicate a lot of why Ks should get RVIs based on the fact that theory is similar and we run RVIs on theory, but and I get what you mean with the voter vs ROTB thing, but aren’t all of your reasons for why we can crossapply reasons theory gets RVIs to Ks based on the fairness voter (or whatever voter)? If a K debater wins that their ROTB comes first, don’t you have to justify an RVI under their ROTB just like we justify RVIs based on fairness/education/jurisdiction? Why should a judge that knows that her role of the ballot is to reject all instances of capitalism care about whether or not Ks skew time or are no risk?
3. Doesn’t trying to justify an RVI under their ROTB make it so any debate about an RVI within the ROTB always devolves to the same K vs theory debate that sucks so much? If there’s no real change when we run an RVI against a K, I don’t get what the net benefit is vs just running theory on the K for being unturnable (essentially the same as an RVI once you have to weigh theory vs ROTB anyway)
4. Do all prefiat issues have to be on the same layer? Theory and meta theory are both prefiat, but metatheory supposedly comes before theory. Why can’t Ks come first, theory second, then substance etc.?
5. Really quickly back to my first point and how you say the RVI makes Ks better, refer to 1c. Do you think that giving an RVI excludes too many Ks/are there any that aren’t abusive? Given the problems you talked about, are Ks ever fair/should debaters evern run them?
Whats wrong with OOO? 🙁