Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shelbyhxc

Whats your Favorite Critique and why?

Recommended Posts

Whats ur fav critiques and why?

i dont really have one. i dont usually like Ks, but if i really had to choose, i would say fuko. Or atleast i like to hit it because people never run it well...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even thought its gets a bad rap i still like orientalism

Said's K of western perceptions of the other has a lot of different modules and i personally like it because it was the first K i really got into and felt comfortable with.

 

The basic structure of the K is

A) link- the aff endorses the orientalist mindset by doing X to the other (helping the other "white mans burden", promoting western culture/education/politics etc.)

B) Impact-the orientalist mindset justifies opression, dehumanization, imperialism etc.

C) Alt- either reject aff or reconceptualize our relationship with the other

 

the alt (as with most K's) is the hardest part of the K to win, usually you can get a link of the rhetoric of the 1AC's cards

 

but thats just me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big pimpin k

 

link: its a link of omission, you don't acknowledge my big pimpiness

impact: lack of acknowledgement of my big pimpiness reifies bad structures, reetneches us in power, leads to ontological damnadocide, otherizes the ho-multitude, turns the case

alt: big pimpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

critiques of the debate community.....honestly, they are the only ones with true solvency in accordance with the ballots and it has empirical solvency (and no i am not talking about louisville or kcc)....metadebates have happened all the time, they happen in theory debates and they happened when judges gave ballots to teams when they speed read and pointed out when teams dropped arguments, these are all instances of the judge using the ballot to legitimize a certain style or vision for debate, ultimately critiques of the debate community just bought form and were more overt in their approach.....i love this argument a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
critiques of the debate community.....honestly, they are the only ones with true solvency in accordance with the ballots and it has empirical solvency (and no i am not talking about louisville or kcc)....metadebates have happened all the time, they happen in theory debates and they happened when judges gave ballots to teams when they speed read and pointed out when teams dropped arguments, these are all instances of the judge using the ballot to legitimize a certain style or vision for debate, ultimately critiques of the debate community just bought form and were more overt in their approach.....i love this argument a lot

yeah, but those get commodified...which is just a bummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault on the Neg, because i think its one of the more practical ones to run in a debate round. Its easy on most judges ears, and because many teams really dont understand his critique.

 

ME AND MY PARTNER ARE GOIN LARN U SOME FU-KO!!! YEAH BUDDY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kritik of the Gregorian Calendar, by far

 

EDIT: Forgot the Why:

1. I personally believe it

2. Its fun to run

3. I've yet to hit a team with carded responses to it

4. Ultra hippy and awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Msacko...

 

When you run Stavrakakis, do you label who is the scapegoat. We use to run it with the idea of the aff trying to create a utopia free from _____. Last year it would work with whatever the aff would try to stop aka wiretapping, border searches, etc. The problem with it would be that although we could win on it, we would have to label a certain group of people that are going to be the scapegoat and this was not always easy.

 

I guess it is possible to not label the scapegoat but I wouldnt think it would be as successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stavrakakis uses the concept of the Nazi and the Jew, however to avoid holocaust trivilization, I've used a few that include Stalin and his political opponents, or Brown V. Board of Education and Operation Wetback. (Where over one million mexicans were deported in 1954.)

You can also use the "Psychotive Cognative Dissonance Theory" to further your claim. This is where people transfer negative feelings about race, etc. to other minority groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANTHROPOCENTRISM- (its so bad, we ran it, the other team dropped it completely, didn't even mention it in the road map, and the judge dropped us, just because it was that dumb)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANTHROPOCENTRISM- (its so bad, we ran it, the other team dropped it completely, didn't even mention it in the road map, and the judge dropped us, just because it was that dumb)

 

Did you not have a link or something? Because that K isn't that bad at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you not have a link or something? Because that K isn't that bad at all...

 

haha no we had a couple of good links, but still i think its pretty bad at this point, all my coaches hate it, and the judge dropped us, because he even said he hated the argument and wasn't gonna vote on it

 

it was also ata camp tournament this year...ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The links were alright, but not as good as they were, for like the oceans topic or other topics that dealt directly with the environment. Civil liberties links were more theoretical and weren't bought as often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The links were alright, but not as good as they were, for like the oceans topic or other topics that dealt directly with the environment. Civil liberties links were more theoretical and weren't bought as often.

 

one huge mistake my partner made, was in one round, he tried to use a crossx discourse link, that was- he asked if there were any military qualifications, the other debater on the aff said, men and women. so in his speech he was like "the affirmative had human qualifiations in the military, that excludes animals-reinforcing anthro" then he read a card that was like, military does animal testing- reinforcing non-human inferiority. which is kinda a double turn, because the military excludes animals, but its for their own good, (cause they get beaten and abused anyway)

 

it wouldn't have really mattered, we covered it up pretty well in the rebutals, but still, it was a stupid move (this was against a draft aff by the way.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...