Jump to content
RomaSeeEcs

I've never heard a critique; Can someone thoroughly explain them?

Recommended Posts

I'm a UIL debater in South Texas, and my record is 9-4; I've ran against CPs, DAs, and Ts, but I've never gone against a K.

Can someone please explain to me the theory of a critique and how it wins the debate? and an example of how a critique works in this year's topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a UIL debater in South Texas, and my record is 9-4; I've ran against CPs, DAs, and Ts, but I've never gone against a K.

Can someone please explain to me the theory of a critique and how it wins the debate? and an example of how a critique works in this year's topic?

 

A kritik is usually an indict of the epistemology presented by the 1ac, saying that it is bad and causes bad things to happen and then presents an alternative to fix both the bad thing and solve for the aff.

 

This is what a flow of a security K against a heg aff would be like after the 1nc:

heg is securitizing - burke

heg unsustainable - zizek 99

heg causes wars - dillon 99

heg kills ontology - rand 69

ontology first - dillon 99

reject da aff - marcuse 69

 

The neg would argue that rejecting the aff solves for the epistemology because we question the reasons why we look to securitize ourself, and once we question it we no longer feel worried and thus the case is solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A kritik is usually an indict of the epistemology presented by the 1ac, saying that it is bad and causes bad things to happen and then presents an alternative to fix both the bad thing and solve for the aff.

 

epistemology = knowledge production, the way you have come to acquire knowledge and the way you interpret that knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From: The Debate Bible (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/debate_bible.htm#VI.%20THE%20CRITIQUE)

 

VI. THE CRITIQUE

Much as we have Leeper to blame for the permutation and Panetta for the topical counterplan, Bill Shanahan (now of Fort Hays) is to be held accountable for the critique. It is sometimes spelled "Kritik" because that makes the people who use it feel more like they actually read German. You should be aware that the following section is not being written by a fan of the critique.

Basic ideas

There are 3 inter-related things that a critique means. The first is that they are critiquing your "paradigm." A paradigm is nothing more than a theory or a way of viewing the world. Capitalism may be a paradigm, socialism may be another, neo-classicism may be another. The most popular paradigm to critique "modernism," which is the belief that power derives from the people, that elected representatives and democracy work pretty well, that the world can be classified relatively neatly into discrete categories (like "land" and "air" and "rich" and "poor"), and that the state when it acts in its proper function serves to protect and serve the populous. Essentially, the critique argument goes like this: "Your plan is from paradigm X, paradigm X is bad, therefore your plan is bad." The argument is called a "critique" because the negative isn't really clashing with the plan, it is critiquing the paradigm that the plan came from. The idea is that if we critique philosophies before we start talking about policy actions we'll get a better philosophy and then, they hope, better policy actions. The method used to point out the flaws in philosophies in the hope that criticism will prevent abuses and move them forward is often called "deconstruction." A key feature of deconstruction is that it holds that you don't have to offer an alternative philosophy or course of action; the think that tearing down bad ideas is enough to start us moving in the right direction.

Usually, the affirmative won't claim to be "from" any paradigm nor will they really claim to defend any paradigm. Instead, plans usually "assume" paradigms. For example, if I decide to fund my plan, I may have assumed that you need money to operate, that if someone gets paid they will do their job, that they can't be motivated to do their job unless they get paid, and in short, you have assumed a capitalist system.

The big issue is what happens to fiat and the plan. One way to run the critique is to link the argument to the plan and the cards read on the case; it literally functions as a disad. The claim is that the plan propagates false rhetoric and it is a reason that the aff. should be rejected. The second way to run the argument is to claim that fiat is an illusion and doesn't exist and as a result nothing happens as a result of the plan; the only thing that really matters is the rhetoric that the debaters use in the round. The critique isn't linked to the plan and the evidence but instead to the way that the people in the room talked.

The last question is how to evaluate the argument. There are 3 ways that I know of. First, the negative might claim that it is an "a priori" issue; that before discussing advantages and disadvantages you have to prove that your paradigm is OK and that if you can't do that the discussion should stop and you should lose. There is not much of a reason for this but negatives say it all the time anyway. If you ask them why they'll say something like "You just have to justify your assumptions and then you can move on." They might also use the word "deontology" -- don't be afraid of it; it only means that if you have a bad paradigm you have misunderstood the way that the world really works. Understanding "the way the world works" is the study of being or essence and is called "ontology," so "deonotology" means that you have to reject all ideas that misrepresent the way the world works. Second, it can be a solvency argument. The idea is that your paradigm is faulty, it misrepresents the way that the world really works, and so any idea it produces must also be faulty. As a result, you can never really solve any problem with an idea that comes from a bad paradigm. Usually the negative will have cards that actually say things about why the paradigm won't solve; you should be aware that they mean that you can't solve really big problems like understanding the nature of humanity or solving all violence or something like that and they aren't necessarily talking about the case advantage. Thirdly, the negative might say that you have "reified" the paradigm. That means that when you assume that a paradigm exists and operate using the assumptions of the paradigm you subtly entrench the paradigm and make it more hard to get rid of. You don't have to explicitly defend or advocate the paradigm to reify it; using it without thinking about it reifies it. And so, the argument goes, you can't really fix anything with the paradigm and by using the paradigm without thinking you have made it a little worse; in the worst high school vernacular the argument is a "non-unique PMA/DA" -- both a solvency argument and a disad.

How to answer the beast

There are 4 ways to answer a critique; you can claim that all critiques are bad, you can say that the particular critique issued in the round is bad, you can say that your plan isn't part of the paradigm under critique, and you can say that the critique isn't a voting issue.

THE PLAN DOESN'T LINK

Think of the critique as a disad with the link being that the plan is part of a paradigm. The quick and easy thing to do is to say that the plan does is not part of the paradigm in question. If they say things like "the plan is normative" say that it isn't. Ask them what the hell "normative" is and explain ways that the plan doesn't assume it. Also, say things like "There is no evidence that says that the plan is normative" -- that will drive them crazy because you're right. In fact, it is usually pretty easy to think of reasons why you "challenge" the paradigm in question rather than support it. Keep in mind this is the part of the debate where they have no advantage over you whatsoever; they are just saying that the plan is part of a paradigm and you are saying that it isn't and your story is just as good as theirs. In fact, you might want to explain it this way in the 2AR: "Look, we've been debating this for 7 speeches now. We can tell all the stories that we want but its their argument and they have to PROVE the link ... you'd never vote for a disad without a link card, so don't vote for this without an evidenced link to the plan." And if they do read a link card, of course, you should read it and make sure that they are right about what it says. If you don't understand most of the words in the card or it is from Foucault, point out that the evidence is incomprehensible.

ALL CRITIQUES ARE BAD

Here's the scoop -- this is where everyone started debating the critique when it started winning a bunch of rounds for Texas a couple of years ago. It will now be very difficult to win this argument (unless you have a Dinosaur-type judge) both because most judges will probably accept that critiques are legitimate arguments and because the negative will be wired to debate you on the issue. Having said that, make these arguments anyway: It will irritate them, make them start using words like "post-structural de-distinctionism", confuse the judge, and suck their time. The specific arguments are contained on the "critiques are bad" theory brief.

The one argument that will really bug the negative is the uniqueness argument. Just point out that the paradigm will exist with or without the plan, the negative can't quantify any degree of entrenchment the plan causes, and so on. If they can't win it as a solvency argument (and they can't -- see below) the linear entrenchment doesn't outweigh Newt Gingritch's brain tissue.

THE PARTICULAR CRITIQUE IS BAD

Here are some specific critiques that are likely to rear their heads over and over. The "statism" critique says that you either assume that individuals exist and so you diss on the collective or that you privilege the collective and diss on the individual; either way you play into the power of the state and probably make them more likely to use nukes. The "normativity" critique says that the assumption that specific changes in the law will work is bad. We shouldn't be talking as if we could magically change the law and as if changes in the law magically change problems. Literally, the critique is questioning fiat and so it should apply on just about any topic you hear. The author's name is "schlag," it rhymes with "dog," and he's talking about law school debates. If the topic isn't a legal one the argument will probably be misapplied and you should say things like "Schlag assumes legal education, not the plan." There are various "power" critiques, mostly from Foucault or his minions, that say that power is bad, that uses of power are bad, that power is "fluid" and not static, or something like that. If the topic is a legal one, there are critiques of the constitution that say that constitutionalism are bad. On international topics there are critiques of the nation-state system or the existence of borders.

If you want to debate the negative on this level you need to do research on their specific author and argument. I don't know what I think about this strategy; on the one hand you are playing on their field and debating them off of your case, but on the other hand negatives aren't used to having to defend their own authors and arguments and I have seem some negatives fold under the pressure. If you can't beat the argument any other way or if you are really bad at theory this isn't a bad option.

THE CRITIQUE DOESN'T OUTWEIGH

This is probably just another way of saying that critiques in general are bad, and the relevant arguments are contained in the theory briefs. I think these are some really good arguments; they let you accept the legitimacy of the critiques but still make them non-issues. I also think they are true. There are 2 in particular that I just think are correct.

First, you should say that when their cards say that nothing from your paradigm can solve they mean nothing can solve the grand problems of human existence, like hatred, jealousy, war, etc. They do NOT mean that you can't get the case advantage and if the neg. says that their authors do assume that they are probably wrong. Word this as "No negative evidence assumes or even mentions X" and instead of X use the label for the case advantage. If they say that their evidence says nothing can solve you need to characterize the debate by saying that you are reading specific solvency evidence for the plan and they are reading generic evidence that says "actions don't fix problems." That simply isn't good enough as an absolute solvency takeout and the neg. can't quantify any other reduction in solvency.

Second, you should say that it is simply wrong that a bad paradigm can't solve anything. Copernican mathematics are generally a bad paradigm but they have many equations that they solve well. Pathagoras was operating from a paradigm that claimed that all matter on the earth was composed of fire but he was right about the Pythagorean theorem. The Nazis had a flawed social paradigm but they had a good train system; the bad social paradigm system didn't mean that the train system couldn't work. All this is a reason that the plan still solves.

Strategy and the Critique

There are 3 things to keep in mind when debating the critique. First, you probably don't want to debate them at their level. When a critique is introduced the negative is essentially saying that you ignore all the practical consequences of the plan and only discuss whether its particular philosophy is good or bad. The aff. needs to re-assert that the plans consequences and advantages should be weighed. If the aff. can win that point they'll win the debate 90% of the time because as a disad the critique doesn't have any uniqueness to speak of. The more you talk about their philosophy and its legitimacy the more it seems like their arguments are OK; you need to make the judge believe that ignoring the plan entirely and discussing ONLY the philosophy is a bad idea. As always, it is good to say something like "they have no evidence that says that only philosophy matters and that practical advantages should be dismissed entirely."

Secondly, you might want to consider straight turning the position. The negatives love the critique because it is a no risk issue for them; affs have to suck time into answering it, if they mishandle it then it becomes an absolute issue, and it can't be turned. If you can straight turn it they may get stuck with an albatross or at least they will suffer a time disadvantage. There are 2 ways to straight turn the critique. First, you can argue that the negative's other arguments violate the critique, that they have entrenched the paradigm more than you have and should hence lose, and that only they have been hypocritical -- you didn't know your paradigm was bad but they did and so they should be punished for violating anyway. Essentially, you are making the argument a reverse voter. Secondly, you can concede all the assumptions about debating the philosophy, claim that the negative assumes a critical theory philosophy (or deconstruction, or whatever) and then beat them senseless with a million "critical theory bad" or "deconstruction bad" arguments.

Thirdly, the most crucial thing to do when debating a critique is to make them explain what their argument means. Here are questions you NEED to know the answers to before you can even debate the argument intelligently:

--Is it a solvency argument, a disad, or both?

--What happens to fiat? If fiat is an illusion is it possible to "move on to other arguments"? If the critique is linked to the plan doesn't that assume that fiat does exist?

--If we justify our assumptions, do we move on to other issues?

--How can we justify our assumptions? Will reading cards do it? What would those cards need to say?

--What paradigm does our plan encompass?

--Is there evidence that says the plan is part of that paradigm?

--What card says that practical consequences should not be considered?

--If we "must reject" the plan, why? Will a better philosophy come along if we do? What philosophy will that be? If you can't tell us, how can we debate it?

--Does the critique assume critical theory is good?

--Does the critique contradict your other arguments? If not, how come (any answer they give will feed your "no link" answers)? If so, why aren't you being grossly hypocritical?

You rock if: You can debate the theory out, you can explain to death the link arguments, you have deconstruction turns ready to go, and you have researched the specific critiques that are being run on the topic.

You can survive if: You are literate with the theory, can make link arguments that trouble the negative, and have cards against the specific critique. If you can just dump the theory answers you get from the blocks you can probably make enough of them to scare the negative away from the argument, but if they're serious about the issue you may still be in trouble.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a novice debater in South Texas, and my record is irrealevent; I've ran against policy novice strats but I've never gone against a good enough team to run a k.

Can someone please explain to me the theory of a critique and how it wins the debate? and an example of how a critique works in this year's topic?

 

 

troll

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
troll

 

No, I feel that was legit. Posted in the novice section by a new user...if it was a troll, it was a poor one. Not everybody knows K's, you were a novice once too, don't forget that before you assume everyone knows K's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epistemology = knowledge production, the way you have come to acquire knowledge and the way you interpret that knowledge

 

And the way you use it. Not to put down the gender k, but some alts do something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like, what do K's impact to. If I have a cap K that says Capitalism kills 6 people, but my opponent has a generic argument that says the Neg 20 people, why does the K come before that? Or does it not? If it doesn't, why isn't it just a disad with solvency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So like, what do K's impact to. If I have a cap K that says Capitalism kills 6 people, but my opponent has a generic argument that says the Neg 20 people, why does the K come before that? Or does it not? If it doesn't, why isn't it just a disad with solvency?

 

2 common ways(there are many others) are that

A. Their impacts are inevitable in a capitalist system - The plan works through capitalism which guarantees policy failure, and leads to more violence or genocide.

B. The K will have a value to life argument, or epistemology, that we should embrace other impacts over extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I'll save that one for my sandwich!"

 

The most ridiculous part of that video has got to be when the farmer looks at the black kid and the farmer, rooster and cow all start making some almost sexual "mhhhmmmm" sound.

 

That video is just messed up in every category

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most ridiculous part of that video has got to be when the farmer looks at the black kid and the farmer, rooster and cow all start making some almost sexual "mhhhmmmm" sound.

 

That video is just messed up in every category

 

It was watched at least once a week last year in debate. Just ask Wogatog...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most ridiculous part of that video has got to be when the farmer looks at the black kid and the farmer, rooster and cow all start making some almost sexual "mhhhmmmm" sound.

 

That video is just messed up in every category

 

It was watched at least once a week last year in debate. Just ask Wogatog...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was watched at least once a week last year in debate. Just ask Wogatog...

 

He did.

We all did.

 

Then, there was nationals...

"remember to breathe..."

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...