Jump to content

Kritiks in LD (help)

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,


I'm trying to learn how to write kritiks as I'm from a pretty progressive area for LD. I know how to do plans, disads, and tradition LD cases, but I have zero experience with kritiks.


Can someone explain the format of a kritik, how to debate for and against it, and explain some generic type of k's like cap, anthro, antiwhiteness?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The structure goes 

1. Link: How the K links to the resolution

2. Impacts: Why is what you are King bad

3. Alternative: What we should do instead of the status quo or K - usually don't do rejection ones otherwise theory

4. Role of the Ballot: Why you should vote for me because I meet the alt. and don't link into the K

Email me for more help : OkobojiDebateJack@gmail.com or 17jahump@student.okoboji.k12.ia.us


Heres an example of one


Link—You guys/man

The phrase “you guys” and nouns ending in “man” subsume women under a masculine discourse.

The Writing Center 2010 ( The Writing Center, University of North Carolina. “Gender-Sensitive Language.” February 11, 2010. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/gender.html. MR. )

Like gendered pronouns, gendered nouns can also provide a stumbling block for the gender-savvy writer. The best way to avoid implications these words can carry is simply to be aware of how we tend to use them in speech and writing. Because gendered nouns are so commonly used and accepted by English writers and speakers, we often don't notice them or the implications they bring with them. Once you've recognized that a gender distinction is being made by such a word, though, conversion of the gendered noun into a gender-savvy one is usually very simple. "Man" and words ending in "-man" are the most commonly used gendered nouns, so avoiding the confusion they bring can be as simple as watching out for these words and replacing them with words that convey your meaning more effectively. For example, if the founders of America had been gender-savvy writers, they might have written " . . . all people are created equal" instead of " . . . all men are created equal . . .." Another common gendered expression, particularly in informal speech and writing, is "you guys." This expression is used to refer to groups of men, groups of women, and groups that include both men and women. Although most people mean to be inclusive when they use "you guys," this phrase wouldn't make sense if it didn't subsume women under the category "guys." To see why "you guys" is gendered male, consider that "a guy" (singular) is definitely a man, not a woman, and that most men would not feel included in the expression "you gals" or "you girls." Another example of gendered language is the way the words "Mr.," "Miss," and "Mrs." are used. "Mr." can refer to any man, regardless of whether he is single or married—but women are defined by their relationship to men (by whether they are married or not). A way around this is to use "Ms." (which doesn't indicate marital status) to refer to women. Sometimes we modify nouns that refer to jobs or positions to denote the sex of the person holding that position. This often done if the sex of the person holding the position goes against conventional expectations. To get a sense of these expectations, think about what sex you would instinctively assume the subject of each of these sentences to be:  The doctor walked into the room. The nurse walked into the room. Many people assume that doctors are men and that nurses are women. Because of such assumptions, someone might write sentences like "The female doctor walked into the room" or "The male nurse walked into the room." Using "female" and "male" in this way reinforces the assumption that most or all doctors are male and most or all nurses are female. Unless the sex of the nurse or doctor is important to the meaning of the sentence, it can be omitted.  As you work on becoming a gender-savvy writer, you may find it helpful to watch out for the following gendered nouns and replace them with one of the alternatives listed below. Check a thesaurus for alternatives to gendered nouns not included in this list.


Link—you guys

Changing language is a pre-requisite to shaping gender equality—phrases like “you guys” reinforce patriarchal system.

Kleinman 07 (Sherryl Kleinman, Professor in Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, “Why Sexist Language Matters.” March 12, 2007. http://www.alternet.org/story/48856/. MR.)

Gendered words and phrases like "you guys" may seem small compared to issues like violence against women, but changing our language is an easy way to begin overcoming gender inequality. For years I've been up inches of space in the newsletter of a rape crisis center? Because male-based generics are another indicator -- and more importantly, a reinforcer -- of a system in which "man" in the abstract and men in the flesh are privileged over women. Some say that language merely reflects reality and so we should ignore our words and work on changing the unequal gender arrangements that are reflected in our language. Well, yes, in part. Link—noun, pronoun


Masculine pronouns and nouns perpetuate male dominance in the workplace.

RSCC 10 The RSCC, online Writing Lab. “Avoiding Sexist Language.” The January 28, 2010. http://www.roanestate.edu/owl&writingcenter/owl/Sexism.html. MR.

When people use sexist language they are actually showing a bias, even if they are unaware of the bias or if it is unintentional. Your usage is sexist if you refer in general to doctors, managers, lawyers, company presidents, engineers, and other professionals as "he" or "him" while referring to nurses, secretaries, and homemakers as "she" or "her." Our goal as communicators is to identify with our audience, not to inadvertently insult them. Follow these guidelines to eliminate sexist expressions from your communications:  1. Use neutral expressions:  Use "chair," or "chairperson," rather than "chairman" Use "businessperson" rather than "businessman" Use "supervisor" rather than "foreman" Use "police officer" rather than "policeman" Use "letter carrier" rather than "postman" Use "homemaker" rather than "housewife" 2. Use plural forms. Instead of using "The manager . . . he," use "The managers . . . they."  3. When possible (as in direct address), use "you." For example, "You can begin to eliminate sexual bias by becoming aware of the problem." But be careful to avoid using "you." If used too often, it can sound as if you're ordering your reader around.  4. Drop endings such as -ess and -ette used to denote females (e.g., poetess, authoress, bachelorette, majorette).  5. Avoid overuse of pairings (him or her, she or he, his or hers, he/she). Too many such pairings are awkward.  6. Avoid sexist salutations such as "Dear Sir", or "Gentlemen." It is always preferable to use the person's name. If you do not know whether a woman is married or not, use Ms. If you are unable to find out the gender of the person, use the position title on an attention line (Attention: Quality Assurance Supervisor) instead of a salutation.  


This has 2 impacts

  1. silence women

Women’s agency is lost when gender language is used.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 10 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Feminist Philosophy of Language” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/. MR.)

Much of feminist philosophy of language so far can be described as criticalcritical either of language itself or of philosophy of language, and calling for change on the basis of these criticisms. Those making these criticisms suggest that the changes are needed for the sake of feminist goals — either to better allow for feminist work to be done or, more frequently, to bring an end to certain key ways that women are disadvantaged. In this entry, I examine these criticisms. I also examine work by feminists that seems to suggest some of the criticisms are misplaced: that, for example, philosophy of language is better able to help in feminist projects than critics suppose. My focus in this entry will generally be on the analytic tradition. There has been a great deal of feminist concern over the supposedly gender-neutral use of terms like ‘he’ and ‘man’. It is commonly said that these terms have both gender-specific meanings, as in sentences (1) and (2), and gender-neutral ones, as in sentences (3) and (4). He drank the wine. A man went into a bar. When a student comes into the room, he should pick up a handout. Man is a primate.  Feminists, however, have pointed out that even the supposed gender-neutral meanings of these terms are not really gender-neutral. Janice Moulton (1981a) and Adele Mercier (1995) provide examples in which there is no doubt that a gender-neutral meaning is intended, but this meaning seems unavailable. As a result, the sentences seem ill-formed: Man has two sexes; some men are female. Man breastfeeds his young. Ask the candidate about his husband or wife.  We are, then, making a classificatory error if we claim that ‘man’ and ‘he’ are gender-neutral terms. In order to avoid such a classificatory error, we need to do more careful work on what the meanings of these terms actually are. Perhaps the meaning of ‘he’ that has been called ‘gender-neutral’ is not really gender-neutral, but something much more complex. Mercier suggests, for example, that we should understand the ‘gender-neutral’ use of ‘man’ as referring to either (a) a person or persons of unknown sex; or (B) males or a combination of males and females. This explains why ‘men’ in (5) and ‘man’ in (6) are anomalous: these terms are being used to refer exclusively to persons known to be female.  The supposed ‘gender-neutral’ meaning of these terms, then, is not truly gender neutral. But, on its own, this does not show that there is a problem with those uses that have traditionally been classified as gender-neutral, as in sentences (3) and (4). (Discovering that we have misclassified an adjective as an adverb would not show anything wrong with actual uses of the term in question.) Further reasons are needed in order to object to the use that is made of these terms. 1.2 Invisibility of women  Feminist concerns, however, go beyond mere classificatory ones. Feminists have also argued that terms like ‘he’ and ‘man’ contribute to making women invisible — that is, to obscuring women's importance, and distracting attention from their existence. Fighting the invisibility of women is an important feminist project in many areas,[1] and language that makes one less likely to think of women clearly contributes to this invisibility. There is good psycholinguistic evidence that those who encounter sentences (like (3) and (4)) using the terms he’ and ‘man’ think more readily of males than of females.[2] If this is right, then the use of these words can be seen as contributing to the invisibility of women. This gives feminists a good reason to object to the ‘gender-neutral’ use of these terms. 1.3 Maleness as norm  If one's only worry concerned the obscuring of women's presence, however, it would be difficult to object to certain other terms to which feminists do commonly object: gender-specific occupational terms like ‘manageress’ (still common in the UK, though not in the US) or ‘lady doctor’. These terms certainly do not contribute to the invisibility of women. Instead, they call attention to the presence of women. Moreover, they call attention to women's presence in positions of authority — doctor and manager. Nonetheless, most feminists who think about language find these terms objectionable.  The clearest reason for objecting to ‘manageress’ and ‘lady doctor’ is that the use of these terms seems premised on the idea that maleness is the norm, and that women filling these jobs are somehow deviant versions of doctors and managers. This is also a key objection to the use of ‘he’ and ‘man’. Moulton (1981a) understands these terms on the model of brand names, like ‘Hoover’ or ‘Scotch tape’ that become generic terms for a product type. The message of such terms, she suggests, is that the brand in question is the best, or at least the norm. According to Moulton, terms like ‘he’ and ‘man’ work in the same manner: they are gender-specific terms for men whose use has been extended to cover both men and women. This, Moulton argues, carries the message that maleness is the norm. As a result, the use of these terms as if they were gender neutral constitutes a sort of symbolic insult to women.


  1. Inequality

Sexist language is the root cause of patriarchy—leads to male supremacy and loss of women’s agency.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 10 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Feminist Philosophy of Language” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/. MR.)

1Sme feminists (e.g. Penelope 1990; Spender 1985) argue that English is, in some quite general sense, male. (Corresponding arguments are also put forward about other languages.) One thing that is meant by this is that English can be said to be male in a manner similar to that in which particular terms can be said to be male — by encoding a male worldview, by helping to subordinate women or to render them invisible, or by taking males as the norm. One sort of argument for this begins from the examination of large quantities of specific terms, and the identification of patterns of male bias, and proceeds from this to the conclusion that the male bias of English is so widespread that it is a mistake to locate the problem in a collection of words, rather than in the language as a whole. The first stage of this sort of argument is, obviously, a lengthy and complex one. The sorts of claims (in addition to those we have already seen) cited include (a) that there are more words for males than for females in English, and that more of these words are positive (Spender 1985: 15, citing Stanley 1977); (B) that a “word for women assume negative connotations even where it designated the same state or condition as it did for men” (Spender 1985: 17), as with ‘spinster’ and ‘bachelor’; © that words for women are far more frequently sexualized than words for men, and that this holds true even for neutral words, when they are applied to women. Dale Spender, citing Lakoff (1975), discusses the example of ‘professional’, comparing ‘he's a professional’ and ‘she's a professional’, and noting that the latter is far more likely than the former to be taken to mean that the person in question is a prostitute. The sexualisation of words for women is considered especially significant by the many feminists who take sexual objectification to be a crucial element, if not the root, of inequalities between women and men. (For more on such examples, see also Baker 1992.)  This widespread encoding of male bias in language is, according to theorists like Spender, just what we should expect. Males (though not, as she notes, all of them) have had far more power in society, and this, she claims has included the power to enforce, through language, their view of the world. Moreover, she argues, this has served to enhance their power. There is sexism in language, it does enhance the position of males, and males have had control over the production of cultural forms. (Spender 1985: 144)  This, Spender claims, provides circumstantial evidence that males have encoded sexism into language to consolidate their claims of male supremacy’ (Spender 1985: 144). Spender takes the evidence for this claim to be far more than circumstantial, however, and to support it she discusses the efforts of prescriptive grammarians. These include, for example, the claim that males should be listed before females because ‘the male gender was the worthier gender’ (Spender 1985: 147, emphasis hers), and the efforts (noted earlier) to establish ‘he’ as the gender-neutral third-person English pronoun.  According to theorists like Spender, men's ability to control language gives them great power indeed. We have already seen ways in which what one might call the maleness of language contributes to the invisibility of women (with respect to words like ‘he’ and ‘man’). If one takes the maleness of language to go beyond a few specific terms, one will take language's power to make women invisible to be even stronger. We have also seen ways that what might be called maleness can make it more difficult for women to express themselves. Where we lack words for important female experiences, like sexual harassment, women will find it more difficult to describe key elements of their existence. Similarly, where the words we have — like ‘foreplay’ — systematically distort women's experiences, women will have a difficult time accurately conveying the realities of their lives. If one takes such problems to go beyond selected particular terms, and to infect language as a whole, it is natural to suppose that women are to a large degree silenced — unable to accurately articulate key elements of their lives, and unable to communicate important aspects of their thoughts



Only by recognizing our sexist and offensive language can we change our perception on the way we use words. Language determines reality, which means the alternative is one step to deconstructing patriarchy.

Gibbon 1999 (Margaret, Professor at the School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University, “Feminist Perspectives on Language, Pg. 37-38, LV)

Linguistic relativity has been of great interest to feminist linguists. If language can be shown to influence or determine thought, then sexist language will influence speakers in the direction of sexist thought. Changing sexist language will change sexist attitudes; challenging sexist language will raise awareness about sexist assumptions. Dale Spender is a prominent feminist writer who based her book Man-made language upon the notion that language is not just a reflection of ideas and thoughts, is not neutral, but is a trap which limits our capacity to think in non-sexist ways: t has been the dominant group - in this case, males - who have created the world, invented the categories, constructed sexism and its justification and developed a language map which is in their interest. (1985: 142) Spender argues in favour of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, quite explicitly, writing 'it is language which determines the limits of our world, which constructs our reality' (1985: 139). She develops it, not by cross-cultural comparison which is the obvious testing ground for the hypothesis, but by a close examination of lexical and grammatical categorization in English. Her aim is to show how sexist meanings are encoded in the language, leading to the marginalization of women's experience, the invisibility of women or else their derogation. A number of other feminists have also researched this question, as have mainstream linguists, focusing, as did Sapir and Whorf, on the lexicon and upon grammar. We go on to focus on these two areas, relating lexis to categorization and perception and grammatical structure to representation of women and men in language, thought and perception.


Role of the Ballot

The role of the ballot is to stop the oppression of women, because voting this up will stop the oppression of women in debate, and make them feel like they are more accepted. Therefore, if we stop oppression language in debate, it will continue to stop it in everyday interaction, leading to a more just and equality society.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now