Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byRhoda Shepherd Modified over 8 years ago
2
Philosophical or performative advocacy Rejects Traditional policy focus Micro vs Macro resistance to oppression
3
The term “critical theory” or “the critique” (German = “kritik”) was coined by the philosophers associated with the “Frankfurt School”
4
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
5
Epistemology-study of knowledge How do we acquire knowledge? What qualifies as knowledge? What is the relationship between knowledge, belief, and truth?
6
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?
7
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
8
Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest number Most policy affs operate under a utilitarian framework
9
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.
10
Greater argument diversity Develops skills not used in traditional debate Strategic Some prefer discussing philosophical issues over policy
11
Link Impact alternative
12
Links to the assumptions of the aff Aff reinforces X Aff props up X Aff engages in X Aff is complicit in Aff justifies
13
Function similar to policy impacts, but vary in type extinction No value to life Ethics Dehumanization Systemic impacts Epistemology, ontology
14
Non government action Rethink/withdrawal Change mindset/approach Somewhat abstract Requires strong explanation
15
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
16
Links and impacts are different Alternative Moves away from government action and consequentialism and focuses more on justification
17
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
18
Practice Understand the philosophy Understand the story write overviews Break it down in the same way you break down policy arguments
19
Role of the ballot K is a prerequisite Ethics first Root cause
20
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.
21
Framework Perm Link Debate Impact Debate Alternative Debate
22
The debate should be about competitive policy options. The alternative is not a competitive policy option. This is bad for debate (education) (fairness) etc.
23
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
24
Perm do the plan as the last act of the K
25
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”
26
Impact not true Consequences/utilitarian analysis comes first Impact too generic Impact turn (capitalism is good)
27
Alt. Fails Alt doesn’t solve the aff Alt makes things worse (transition wars)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.