Jump to content
commiejohn

WHAT IS A KRITIK?

Recommended Posts

I'm brand new to policy(I'm a fromer L-Der) and my partner is a first year varsity we've survivied the first two tournie's having only hit one kritik but still we have no idea what to do against a kritik or exactly how to run one. I think i understand the basics, it seems like it's essientially the same as an l-d arguement but i dont understand the exacts likethe parts and things like perm and such. Any kind of help would be greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to cross-x commiejohn. :)

 

In the future, if you have a question that is likely to have been answered before, please do a search before posting a new thread. This helps us keep the forums free of redundant clutter.

 

To answer you question, there are two particularly good articles online, available here:

 

http://debate.uvm.edu/code/037.html

 

http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/GartensteinPrestes1997RenewableEnergy.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from the perspective of an LDer (I do Policy and LD), you will love the philosophical and value-based focus K's bring to policy debate once you learn how to run and respond to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a position that takes a stance that questions assumptions with some set of tools to arouse some sort of implication from said assumptions. sometimes an alternative way of approaching the object in question is offered.

 

or a non-unique disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so then i think I'm starting to understand K's now but I'm not sure what I want to run. The rest of my school's policy team are running K's and me and my partner aren't sure what to run is there any good "philosophical and value-based" K's to run that are somewhat easy understand but not easy to beat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so then i think I'm starting to understand K's now but I'm not sure what I want to run. The rest of my school's policy team are running K's and me and my partner aren't sure what to run is there any good "philosophical and value-based" K's to run that are somewhat easy understand but not easy to beat?

 

The team that better understands a critical argument (or any argument) tends to win it. There aren't any magic bullet arguments, nor are any critical arguments super-easy to understand. They aren't impossible, either, they just take work. If you want to run one well and win with it, your best bet would be to go back to the primary author(s) and literature and read it yourself, and write as much of the argument on your own as you can.

 

For some ideas about arguments, just poke around this forum until something catches your attention, I guess. This year's high school topic is pretty fertile ground for lots of value criticism, and quite a few arguments have sprung up.

 

The temptation will be for you to run an argument from a file that somebody else produced. It's easy to find an already-written criticism, and it's hard to put them together on your own. The reasons against that aren't always compelling: arguments from a file can win rounds. In the end, though, you won't have learned much, if anything, about the true character of the argument as the author envisioned it, or how to run it in anything but the most shallow way. You'll be smarter by doing it all the hard way, and you can take that from me, because I've done it both ways.

 

Ugh, that was long and not entirely what you were asking. I hope it will help you, though.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm jusgt a soph from a conservative area but here goes...

1.)Criticism-something is bad w/ the world, government, ppl etc. or something needs to be strived for

2.) link- the plan causes more or is the root cause of this bad stuff/plan prevents good stuff

3.) Impact-self explanitory

4.)Altrenative-what we should do about this problem aka: reject aff, strive to accomplish something else etc.

Hope it helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a non-unique disad.

i think you're all approaching the criticism in the wrong manner (not just you in particular this is aimed more at the people who were implying it to be a non-unique disad). although there is an impact involved of course the criticism is not a disadvantage a criticism is something different from any other debate argument. but if you want to frame it in a slightly different light a criticism is really more of a counterplan but with a plan text that differs from the traditional policy perspective (the alt).

The team that better understands a critical argument (or any argument) tends to win it. There aren't any magic bullet arguments, nor are any critical arguments super-easy to understand. They aren't impossible, either, they just take work. If you want to run one well and win with it, your best bet would be to go back to the primary author(s) and literature and read it yourself, and write as much of the argument on your own as you can.

in all reality this is probably the best advice you're going to get around here. it's really best to write your own criticisms but if you don't want to or don't have the time to do so you can get a file from someone else. however in the event that you do that i highly reccomend looking up some of the work from each of the authors within the file so you can truly grasp the concept or criticism that the author is making. once you do that you should be able to fairly fine.

 

Keep in mind though that many of the arguments take alot of time and alot of practice. if you tend to suck it up at first chill just keep on trying keep on reading and try to discuss the literature you come across with whomever will listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In simple terms a kritik is nothing more than a disadvantage and a counterplan combined.

The other team did X (X can be anything, they used gendered language, they uphold judicial activism, anything at all)

This is bad because X

You(Judge) should then ______ < fill in the blank

 

So one could be

Aff plan overrules a court decision

You read the K of Judicial activism

 

It says overuling a court case is judicial activism, judicial activism is bad because of X, the alternative (part like a cp is ) have executive branch do plan by writting an executive order.

 

So it is like a DA with an alternative.

 

And read over your team's K shells they will help you understand them.

 

So 1.) Aff plan did this

2.) This is bad because...

3.) Alternative

 

K's are usually good for a net benefit to a counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh sweet i went to camp with one of your team mates a couple years back. if you really need an explanation of agamben just ask rachel about it and tell her alex wants her to actually explain it to you instead of handing a foucault picture book and walking away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the K of Judicial activism

 

you're doing a very poor job of making it sound like K isn't the same as "non unique DA"

 

Especially, like, XO and agamben or Courts and Heidegger.

 

i hope this is just a very bad joke.

 

commiejohn- there are lots of judges on your (our) circuit that will talk to you about this and be very helpful. check the great plains forum, specifically the "call to arms..." thread for my contact info. also, there are several other judges i can put you in touch with who would be willing to talk to you about what a K is and which K you may want to run (this would also be beneficial since you would be playing to the norms/desires of the judging pool you will debate in front of). just don't ask john beatty for help on the K...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially, like, XO and agamben or Courts and Heidegger.
i hope this is just a very bad joke.

chill dude it is a joke and you weren't there to know the context in which it was done trust me it's hilarious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks. Yea and don't worry the one thing I decided after my first practice round with John is that I was defiently never going to ask him for help on with a K. In my oppinion Statism sux. On the plus side though I really do respect John as an upperclass varsity policy debater he knows alot about different cases and is good at explaining things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In simple terms a kritik is nothing more than a disadvantage and a counterplan combined.

The other team did X (X can be anything, they used gendered language, they uphold judicial activism, anything at all)

This is bad because X

You(Judge) should then ______ < fill in the blank

 

So one could be

Aff plan overrules a court decision

You read the K of Judicial activism

 

It says overuling a court case is judicial activism, judicial activism is bad because of X, the alternative (part like a cp is ) have executive branch do plan by writting an executive order.

 

So it is like a DA with an alternative.

 

And read over your team's K shells they will help you understand them.

 

So 1.) Aff plan did this

2.) This is bad because...

3.) Alternative

 

K's are usually good for a net benefit to a counterplan.

STOP SPEAKING JEWFRO YOU KNOW NOTHING YOU ARE A EMBARRASMENT TO YOU BROTHER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...