Content-Manager
37
edits
Difference between revisions of "Hijacks"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
made it nicer
(Created page with "Hijacks are a philosophical argument read (generally on neg) to prove that one framework (Framework A) ends in the conclusion of another (Framework B), and that Framework B ne...") |
(made it nicer) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hijacks are a philosophical argument read (generally on neg) to prove that one framework (Framework A) ends in the conclusion of another (Framework B), and that Framework B negates. These are strategic because | ==Basics == | ||
Hijacks are a philosophical argument read (generally on neg) to prove that one framework (Framework A) ends in the conclusion of another (Framework B), and that Framework B negates. | |||
These are strategic because: | |||
1–They’re relatively less common and throw others off guard | |||
2–It technically concedes the aff framework but results in the conclusion that their framework negates, getting out of a lot of theory shells that phil debaters often read like aff-framework-choice | |||
3–It’s a way for affs to read multiple frameworks because they are not saying a framework is true, but that their opponent’s framework justifies a different one | |||
4–There are no “generic” responses to hijacks–it’s all specific to the specific one read by their opponent. | |||
==Example== | |||
An example is put below: | |||
Kant collapses to contractarianism, the idea that ethics are based on mutual agreements: | |||
1–Performativity - you agree to prep time, speech times, the res, etc - proves debate requires the existence is mutual agreements to function - means responses to my fw presume its true and absent contracts we can’t express Kantian obligations | 1–Performativity - you agree to prep time, speech times, the res, etc - proves debate requires the existence is mutual agreements to function - means responses to my fw presume its true and absent contracts we can’t express Kantian obligations | ||
2–Bindingness - theories cannot be legitimate absent a motivation to follow it - only a theory that we have consented to can take into account our own desires and give us a reason to follow it - otherwise Kantianism would never be considered legitimate | 2–Bindingness - theories cannot be legitimate absent a motivation to follow it - only a theory that we have consented to can take into account our own desires and give us a reason to follow it - otherwise Kantianism would never be considered legitimate | ||
3–Restraint - their theory presumes a contract with others to mutually follow their theory, so we’re a side constraint - if the other is not bound by mutual restraint - then they did not make a choice to follow a framework freely since there was no consent which is coercion | 3–Restraint - their theory presumes a contract with others to mutually follow their theory, so we’re a side constraint - if the other is not bound by mutual restraint - then they did not make a choice to follow a framework freely since there was no consent which is coercion | ||
That negates–[insert topic specific reasons] | That negates–[insert topic specific reasons] | ||