Explain please, I'm so confused.
What is "the K"
I dont know, explain where you saw it
1 example, on BSH1 vs Virt on does god exist,
Rashmutu says this
“Since Vert makes no arguments against the K”...
Virt, debate round 2.
“1. The K
Con brings an interesting K to the argument. I contend that both the Theistic and Atheistic viewpoints make several predictions about how the world should look like. If Atheism is true, then this is what it should look like; and if Theism is true, this is what it should look like. The Atheist view point, for example, would say that evil is incompatible with Theism and the Theist would say, for example, that objective moral facts can only exist in a Theist-centered world.
The first argument I brought up, the ontological argument, is an a priori proof of God's existence while the KCA and moral argument are an a posteriori proof of God's existence.
I propose that we can know God's existence through both pure logic and through empirical evidence. ”
Also on my debate "Excluding humans, elephants are the best animal"
Ragnar says:The obvious K comes to mind of proving that elephants are better than humans.
Its short for a Kritik.
Its a debate strategy where the underlying assumptions of a debate resolution are challenged by one side instead of the debate resolution directly.
For example, if you were debating whether Christianity was a good moral framework, a Kritik would be to argue that the question is nonsensical, as good and bad is meaningless without a moral framework to judge them by.
--> @Dr.Franklin @Ramshutu
The K is the forbidden technique of the noobsniper. Ramshutu has brought justice to all the K'ers except himself and Ragnar. Oh the K, the Ninja way!
It's short for KFC... It means you think there's a secret ingredient missing. /kidding
In all seriousness, it's what Ram' said; a Kritik... I should add that it's a pretty varied thing, which is not always done intentionally, but is sometimes done basically as a trolling tactic ('well you haven't proven that Earth exists, so this debate is meaningless!'). So different magnitudes and intents.
I'll never forget an early debate I did along the lines of 'presuming free will exists, prison is more voluntary than not.' An idiot tried to K it by arguing against free will, which actually left the topical debate itself untouched. ... Not too long ago, I had someone lightly K their own resolution, while having a stipulated rule against K's.
What RM means, and is odd as it’s been explained multiple times, is that some Kritiks are good, some are bad.
Challenging a definition as unfair, and giving key reasons why the definition should not be accepted is a kritik, but normally if we’ll executed is good and reasonable.
Likewise, a Kritik where you challenge the validity of the assumption: for example that when comparing two things to see which is better, clarifying what better means, and whether better is even possible in context can be good in some cases. A great example is when one side shows A is better than B in some criteria, showing B is better than A using others - then rejecting the possibility of comparison as a result is a kritik, but a good one.
What often makes a terrible kritik, is when an individual simply unilaterally asserts what the meaning of a word is in some left field way; or decides to make some nonsense semantic point about what “anachronistic means”. When someone does that it is less about engaging in honest debate on a good point, and more trolling. When the individual who kritiks like that does so without justifying why the reasonably interpreted definition should be rejected, the argument fails on burden.
A good Kritik must justify to the voter why the assumption should be rejected; imo, when the resolution is fully clear, the person doing the Kritik needs to clear that burden. Different definitions or assumptions aren’t rejected just because one side demands it be so.
Note: while I’ve only seen one good example, this goes for rules too. If people put rules in the debate, they’re all challengeable. If an individual wants a rules to be rejected because they’re unfair, they can challenge it and provide good reason that the rule can be ignored - rather than simply moan about it in the debate.
the King of K-ing has spoken.
Well the difference between my approach to Ks and yours: is that if the resolution was “Ramshutu is the king of Kritiks”.
My Kritik would be that there were so many types and format of K, pre-fiat, post-fiat, semantic, value based, etc : that it’s not possible to truly ascertain an overall king - as someone who is broadly good at all them, as they are inherently different.
Your kritik would be “The king chess peice is savagely underpowered, and the Queen is actually the brutally best peice, and as Ramshutu is the best he’s the queen.”
Mhmm, you know exactly what my K would be and what it wouldn't be. You know everything.
I know an awful lot, us: as you appear to be largely predictable, and this fits your pattern of argument, I think it’s largely fair and accurate.
It’s not like, say, our Transgender debate when you suggested I would offer an argument that wasn’t “here are all the issues that effect the transgender, and they are worse than the issues that effect the trans ethnic.”
Thanks, everything you say is true. I will be sure to care what you think of me when I finally begin to try as and when I please and garner wins having lowered your aggression against me and increased others underestimation of me to an optimal level to begin tryharding.
I will like you to observe these 2 debates and see what happens when a whole year of research and adaptation into the userbase here will result in complete decimation of opponents:
it is short for kumbaya, which in the debate means that the beef of the arg was unanswered
it is short for kritik