Introduction to Kritiks

1. Introduction to Kritiks Ryan Galloway Samford University

2. K Lecture Overview • Introduction to Kritiks • Answering Kritiks • Kritik Tricks • Kritiks specific/likely on the topic

3. Kritik • Kritik comes from the German meaning to criticize • It is an argument that challenges the philosophical or linguistic assumptions of the Affirmative case • Example: Why would it be wrong to say mankind when referring to human beings?

4. Structure of the Kritik • Kritiks usually start with a framework debate or a question regarding what the debate is about • Kritiks often say the debate is not about a utilitarian framework • The debate might be about educating people or about how to best use language

5. Link Debate • Kritiks, just like disads, have links • The difference is the link is not always to the plan • It might be to any language or assumption made in your evidence • Example: If you assume that the environment should be protected because of benefits to humans—that is a link to a kritik

6. Impact • Just like disads, Kritiks have impacts • Unlike disads, Kritiks often have deontological impacts—or something you should reject no matter what. • Can someone think of a deontological argument?

7. Impact • Kritiks often also have systemic impacts—meaning the continuation of a system causes oppression or even makes extinction inevitable • The textbook example of this is the Capitalism Kritik—it will argue • Capitalism is unethical • Capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction • Can someone think of a reason why this might be true?

8. Alternative • Kritiks usually have an alternative. • The best way to think about the Kritik alternative is to think of it like a counterplan • An alternative is often to withdraw from an oppressive system or to rethink the oppressive structure • What is an alternative to the capitalism Kritik?

9. Kritik Example • A) Framework: The judge is not a policy maker—the judge is a critical intellectual assessing the assumptions of the affirmative • B) Link: The plan upholds the profit motive of capitalism—aquaculture merely makes capitalism look sustainable and environmentally friendly • C) Impact: Capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction—extinction is inevitable unless we challenge capitalism. • D) Alternative: The judge should intellectually withdraw support from the system of capitalism

10. Answering the K • Solvency: Alt doesn’t solve • Theory: Defend your framework • Offense: Prove why your affirmative is a good idea, and their theory is a bad one • Perms: Combine the affirmative and the alternative

11. Alt doesn’t solve the case • Primary way to beat the K is to prove the alt doesn’t solve the case • Then win the case outweighs • Pragmatism: You should assess what can pragmatically be done • Specificity: Prove that the alternative won’t solve the specifics of the case • Why does challenging capitalism solve for aquaculture?

12. Theory • Framework is usually the #1 theory argument • Debate should only be policy • AFF choice • Resolution is a policy resolution • Fairness: infinite # of philosophies & discursive arguments • Weigh our AFF • Vague alts can get you somewhere as well—usually as a solvency deficit to the kritik • Cross-X can the alternative ever do the AFF? If so, why is the alternative inconsistent with the AFF?

13. Offense • Best way to generate offense is to indict the theory • Argue capitalism is good, argue neo-liberalism is good • Also author theory arguments like Heidegger’s theory leads to Nazism etc.

14. Perms • Always, always permute a kritik • Argue “do both” and “do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt.” • What is the difference? • If the alternative can do the plan, then “do the alternative” also works.

15. Example of a Kritik Front-Line • 1) The Kritik doesn’t solve the case: • A) The Kritik doesn’t solve for specific species of fish • B) The Kritik doesn’t solve our specific scenario of environmental destruction • 2) The debate should be about is the plan better than a policy alternative or the status quo • A) AFF choice makes us flexible to be both a policy and a kritik debater • B) The resolution is a policy resolution—it asks what should be done • C) The implication is to reject the kritik or allow us to weigh our AFF • 3) Capitalism is good—it solves for the environment • 4) Permute: do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative

16. K-Bombs • K-bombs is my nickname for the argument that certain Kritik arguments if you drop, you almost automatically lose • If debating the K team, you must answer these arguments • If you are the K team—drop K-bombs

17. K-Bomb 1: Unpredictability • “We can’t evaluate consequences” usually the experts are as accurate as “monkeys throwing darts at a dartboard.” • Why is it important not to drop this? • Usually you answer this by saying that while there are no absolute truths, there can be limited truths.

18. K-Bomb 2: Ethics are all that matter • This is the second side of the consequences debate—that they don’t matter. • Deontology—we have certain principles we should not violate—no matter what. • To answer this, you have to win that consequences are key to ethics

19. K-Bomb 3: Ontology Comes First • Ontology is the theory of being • It is the “I” in the “I think” • Are we corrupted people, are we evil? • Famous card from Zimmerman that ontological damnation o/ws nuclear war. • Answer this by saying we will never get to a discussion of consequences, because we can think about ontology forever.

20. K-Bomb 4: Epistemology Comes First • Epistemology is how we know what we know. • How do you know that capitalism saves the environment? • Perhaps our sources are corrupted or biased or have incentives to create war • The best answer is to say that even if we don’t know everything, we can know some things.

21. K-Bomb 5: Fiat is an illusion • Fiat is the assumption that the plan should happen • This argument says that the plan will never actually happen • Argues that because the plan never happens, you can claim no impacts from the plan • Frequently run with the “representations are all that matter” K-bomb

22. K-Bomb 6: Representations are all that matter • This is the “discourse is all that matters” argument. • They say that all we are doing is talking • They say that representations create reality • Can you give an example of representations creating reality? • Best answer is to say that an over focus on representations distracts from policy

23. K-Bomb 7: “x” is the root cause of everything • “x” is something like capitalism, patriarchy, statism, etc. • Challenge that anything is the root cause of everything else. • There are proximate causes, but no root causes

24. K-Bomb 8: There is no value to life in your framework • Usually this is because you justify “killing to save” • How could the affirmative justify killing to save? • Challenge this by saying that life always has meaning

25. K-Bomb 9: Your impact is inevitable • They will say that a certain system makes extinction inevitable • This means you should “try or die” you should try to fight capitalism, patriarchy, etc or we all die • Prove that extinction is not inevitable—life is getting better—the environment is getting better