Jump to content
Guardian_Angel

Kritik of T (explination)

Recommended Posts

ok well i understands k's and topicality but when u run the kritik of topicality what changes and well my coach said that i shouldnt run it until i understand it very well so wondering if anyone could help me out please and thank u..

 

FYI: my coach is busy with his college debate thats why im asking for help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok well i understands k's and topicality but when u run the kritik of topicality what changes and well my coach said that i shouldnt run it until i understand it very well so wondering if anyone could help me out please and thank u..

 

FYI: my coach is busy with his college debate thats why im asking for help.

 

Micah hit the nail on the head. I can think of about 15 different Kritiks of T (KOT) right off the top of my head right now. However, I can tell you that the best KOT's are the ones that don't make generic 't'z is teh holocaust'. Successful T indicts will argue case-specific links about inclusion of their rhetoric, language or discourse into the policy arena.

 

Your case should solve back the implications of the KOT. If it doesn't then there is no reason to be running it. Remember, you're not running it because the cool kids are, but because of the strategic advantage of K'ing T up instead of just answering it back normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Micah hit the nail on the head. I can think of about 15 different Kritiks of T (KOT) right off the top of my head right now. However, I can tell you that the best KOT's are the ones that don't make generic 't'z is teh holocaust'. Successful T indicts will argue case-specific links about inclusion of their rhetoric, language or discourse into the policy arena.

 

Your case should solve back the implications of the KOT. If it doesn't then there is no reason to be running it. Remember, you're not running it because the cool kids are, but because of the strategic advantage of K'ing T up instead of just answering it back normally.

 

Tommy's completely right - don't think of a K of T as a separate argument, think of it as a critical standard to a counter-interpretation that serves as an offensive reason to prefer your interpretation of the topic.

 

The best example I can think of this is the Great Apes case on the Africa topic. The resolution called for an increase in public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa. This particular case increased vaccination to Great Apes, and claimed to break down the anthropocentric mentality of the status quo, which was bad because it destroyed the environment, allowed patriarchy, etc.

 

A common topicality argument the negative made was that public health assistance had to go to humans only. The affirmative counter-interpretation argued that this interpretation was bad because it still subscribed to the anthropocentric mindset the affirmative was criticizing. In other words, anthropocentricism was a disadvantage to the neg interpretation, and reason to subsequently prefer the aff interpretation (prolly something like give it to animals - humans are an animal, therefore we are able to break down the mindset).

 

Note, this isn't a reason to abandon T entirely. The aff would still play standards defense and offense on normal T standards (i.e. ground defense - you still get all your foreign aid links because it has to be set up through some type of government-to-government service legally; limits offense - bigger topics are good because they allow us to learn about more, i.e. animals, than we would otherwise, and it's impossible to get that in-depth a debate round anyways). The aff can still argue reasonability. However, they still have this external offensive standard to weigh against the interpretation as they saw fit.

 

EDIT: Generic Ks of T are usually self-evidentially ridiculous. Think the T = genocide card. There are some better (but still not good) generic Ks of T, such as a D+G kritik of static language. You should still answer T straight-up though. Unless you have some good kritikal offense to garner explicitly from your case, if you're lose that you're not topical, you should lose the debate.

Edited by kevinwy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does anybody have a good block against this argument for kritcal aff's? Or can help me with authos or info i should include?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the one if have just says topicality sets up waht we can and cant talk about and that leads to oppression and one of the impacts is colonialism and the author is Bleiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...