Presentation on theme: "Introduction to Kritiks Ryan Galloway Samford University."— Presentation transcript:
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