Introduction to Kritiks Ryan Galloway Samford University

K Lecture Overview  Introduction to Kritiks  Answering Kritiks  Kritik Tricks  Kritiks specific/likely on the topic

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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