 Philosophical or performative advocacy  Rejects Traditional policy focus  Micro vs Macro resistance to oppression

 The term “critical theory” or “the critique” (German = “kritik”) was coined by the philosophers associated with the “Frankfurt School”

 Epistemology-study of knowledge  Ontology-study of being  Deontology-morality based on duty and obligation to rule  Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest number  Postmodernism/post structuralism-method of philosophy and academia, instability and uncertainty of meaning, critical of modern philosophy

 Epistemology-study of knowledge  How do we acquire knowledge?  What qualifies as knowledge?  What is the relationship between knowledge, belief, and truth?

 Ontology-study of being  sub branch of philosophy under metaphysics  What actually exists?  What does it mean to exist?  What is the meaning of existence?

 Deontology-morality based on duty and obligation to rule  Categorical imperative  The result of the action is less important than the justification and reason for acting

 Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest number  Most policy affs operate under a utilitarian framework

 Postmodernism/Post Structuralism-method philosophy and academia, instability and uncertainty of meaning,  critical of modern philosophy  Embraces new fields of study  Psychology, science, sociology, etc.

 Greater argument diversity  Develops skills not used in traditional debate  Strategic  Some prefer discussing philosophical issues over policy

 Link  Impact  alternative

 Links to the assumptions of the aff  Aff reinforces X  Aff props up X  Aff engages in X  Aff is complicit in  Aff justifies

 Function similar to policy impacts, but vary in type  extinction  No value to life  Ethics  Dehumanization  Systemic impacts  Epistemology, ontology

 Non government action  Rethink/withdrawal  Change mindset/approach  Somewhat abstract  Requires strong explanation

 Gateway issue  Test the theoretical legitimacy of the aff  Does the neg have to offer a competitive policy option?  More judges are willing to let teams leverage than advantages than outright rejecting the k

Links and impacts are different Alternative Moves away from government action and consequentialism and focuses more on justification

 Not the same as researching policy arguments  Use primary sources  Project muse and other academic search engines  See what other authors right about the issue or author in question

 Practice  Understand the philosophy  Understand the story  write overviews  Break it down in the same way you break down policy arguments

 Role of the ballot  K is a prerequisite  Ethics first  Root cause

 Kritiks of International Relations: Security, Threat Construction, Feminist International Relations  Kritiks of the State: Agamben/Otherness, Foucault/Biopower, Statism, Empire, and Spanos.  Economic Kritiks: Kritiks such as Zizek focus on the Marxist Grand Narrative: The view that world capitalism is the root of all evil and should that we should work to speed its demise.  Language Critiques: The opposing team has used offensive language or made racist/sexist assumptions.  Identity K’s Gender, Race, Ableism, etc.

 Framework  Perm  Link Debate  Impact Debate  Alternative Debate

 The debate should be about competitive policy options.  The alternative is not a competitive policy option.  This is bad for debate (education) (fairness) etc.

 Perm do both: The affirmative plan and the alternative  Perm do the plan and all non-competitive parts of the alternative  Perm do the aff and the alternative in all other instances

 Perm do the plan as the last act of the K

 They will get some level of a link.  You should argue that the negative cannot articulate a unique link to the K.  Their link is too generic  You solve the link “link turn”

 Impact not true  Consequences/utilitarian analysis comes first  Impact too generic  Impact turn (capitalism is good)

 Alt. Fails  Alt doesn’t solve the aff  Alt makes things worse (transition wars)