Critiques Brian Rubaie, Debate Central

What is a critique?  Disadvantages question desirability of action  Counterplans question methods of action  Critiques criticize ideas and practices in the 1AC.

What does a critique look like?  Critiques are structured much like disadvantages and counterplans.  A. The link – Something the Affirmative did was bad. Their language, representations, view of the world, etc. is bad

What does a critique look like?  B. The Impact – common critique impacts include:  Turns the Case  Root cause of violence  Value to Life

What does a critique look like?  C. The alternative – this is somewhat like a counterplan. It resolves uniqueness problems. Common alternatives include;  Reject the Plan  Do the plan absent our link argument  Engage a new process of politics and thinking

What is “Framework?”  Framework is the frame of reference a person uses to make decisions.  Are they a policy-maker asking if the plan is good or bad, or an academic grading the entire speech?

Practical Example: Security K  The link questions the rhetoric and representations of the plan  Good examples of links:  Hegemony  China  Global Warming

The Security K  The impact is that a rush to action is bad because it obscures the underlying causes of the problem.  Turns the case – can’t solve if we rush to action  Causes bigger problems – we can’t fix extinction-level problems and make them worse with “self-fulfilling prophecies”

The Security K  Reject the idea of America as the savior of space. Instead, embrace a view that looks at: How individuals, communities, and nations perceive space travel, how they imbue space exploration with meaning, and especially how those meanings are contested and repeatedly reinvented as more and more nations articulate the urge to explore space.”

Winning the Security K  Winning the Security K can be accomplished in five key ways:  A. Win that the Aff can’t solve without re- examining the problem  B. Win that the Aff makes the problem worse

Winning the Security K  C. Win that “value to life” outweighs security  D. Win that the alternative can accomplish the best parts of the case  E. Win framework – debates don’t leave the room, they are academic exchanges of language.

Answering the Security K  1. No link – not subjective threats, objective science  2. Perm – don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater  3. “Case solves the critique” – it produces an overview effect where we all realize how tiny we are and our shared goals

Answering the Security K  4. We’re right – threats exist and we need to combat them. The Neg takes on the tone of “one who has never faced a gunman in a dark parking lot.”  5. Space exploration is inevitable: it’s part of human nature

Answering the Security K  6. The affirmative is a pre-requisite – if we don’t stop mass violence it will make peaceful modes of existence impossible  7. Power can be good if it’s used for good purposes – to answer Kanye, maybe one person SHOULD have all that power

Answering the K  Framework: The Negative should win if they prove the plan is a bad idea. The affirmative should win if it is a good idea.  Solvency arguments: The alternative is just another approach. How would it solve your affirmative?

Answering the K  The case outweighs: even if they win everything else, only the affirmative solves extinction. Why is extinction the most important issue?  Irreversibility  Foundation of all joy and human aspiration  Mathematics: self-multiplying  Only objective moral code

Answering the K  Realism: States inevitably compete to maximize their own interests and power. The alternative can’t overcome that reality, even if it’s a good thought experiment.  Permutations