Jump to content
tacoman71

Crash Course on Ks

Recommended Posts

Although I'm a relatively experienced policy debater, my area doesn't run K's often as we are very traditional. Of this entire year I've only seen it run against me twice, the first one was poorly run and the judge didn't consider it in his RFD, the second time, we got wrecked as it was against an east texas debater who are really experienced with K's. They ran the Heidegger k. 

 

Ive been going through K's on the open evidence project and I pretty much get the basic idea behind them. However, I have no idea what the terms deontology, epistemology, and ontology are and how they relate to K's. I'm going to UIL CX state in a couple weeks and I really need to learn all I can about kritiks. As the title says, I pretty much need a crash course in kritiks and my coach who is very traditional doesn't have many resources on kritiks. Any help would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deontology: instead of judging whether something you did had good or bad consequences, it judges the action on whether it conforms to certain rules. ex: killing someone is wrong (always), even if it occurs in self-defense, because you killed someone and it fell under that rule. 

 

epistemology: a system of knowing/understanding the world. science is one, religion is another, they are different ways of explaining the same thing. a scientific "epistemology" tells us to look for evidence, develop a hypothesis, and based on results find a theory. a religious "epistemology" tells us to believe in our own spiritual sense and our religion's beliefs. 

 

ontology: the study of existence. when used in debate, it tends to try and describe a broad system of knowledge and concurrent power. for example, the ontology of the national security complex (discussed by security K authors) is one in which (arguably) threats are constructed and hyped because said 'ontology' (justification, understanding, nature of existence) perceives people we don't fully understand as dangerous and therefore someone we are bound to fight with. 

 

i'd watch John Turner's lecture on Ks if you have time, it's at:

(general Ks)

(ocean Ks pt. 1)

(ocean Ks pt. 2)

 

if you are having trouble answering Ks, openevidence has a lot of great free evidence you can download. generally, you want to extend a framework, make a permutation, make impact defense, and make some offensive alt answers.

 

Ks are a very broad set of arguments, but in general you can conceptualize them as linear DAs (ie are non-UQ descriptions of something bad in the squo that the AFF makes worse) which are given uniqueness by an alternative, which argues that it can resolve this systematic problem. for ex, the cap k talks about the economic system of capitalism, how an AFF subscribes to said ideology, why that is bad, and how we can end capitalism. 

 

anything more specific you're curious about?

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If this is being described the way it is : Another type of K i'd think is a worry are the identity politics debaters who shape everything to be a real world debate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is being described the way it is : Another type of K i'd think is a worry are the identity politics debaters who shape everything to be a real world debate

 

I'm not sure what you mean. And are theory arguments effective against Kritiks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean. And are theory arguments effective against Kritiks?

Not since the 90's. About the only relevant theory is perms, but the efficacy of those is rooted in the lit base and not debate theory.

 

For the structure of the 2ac you want

 

Fw: the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the case against the K to prevent mooting of the 1ac

 

Link defense: Explain why your aff shouldn't link to X. If it's cap, explain why even socialists would build wind farms or whatever.

 

Permutation: once you've established warrants for why you don't link, you can justify the permutation

 

Impact defense/turns: what you want to go for depends on your aff. Big stick policy aff's should probably impact turn things like cap K's, while caring soft left aff's should be aiming to go for the perm and some defense.

 

Alt fails/turns: explain why (preferably with cards) the alt will fail. For instance, if you're hitting that dumb Zizek reject cap to clear an epistemic lens alt, make arguments about why trying to create a cap free space failed (occupy, Seattle protests, hippy communes) and then read a card or two about how it causes other anti-cap movements with specific strategies to backlash.

 

 

Edit, to define those terms in another way

 

Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. For instance, someone living in Spanish Harlem would probably know that the cops are jerky, but a rich white kid from South Carolina would know the cops are there to keep their neighborhood safe. They know these things because if lived experiences and what they are exposed to. This applies to K's in the sense that they question our assumptions. For instance, they could indict an econ advantage because you assume a capitalist economy is good when they say it's exploitative.

 

Ontology is the study of being. Compared to metaphysics, which asks what is in the world (does a higher power exist?) ontology asks how things in the world exist. For instance, consider a fireplace. In it are logs, and you could argue that as you watch it, the logs exist in the world in a state of being on fire. This raises the question of static versus fluid ontologies. Obviously that log wasn't always on fire. Some identity based K's (such as Wilderson) however, argue that certain things are ontologically 'locked in' so to speak, in that case, that the black body is always enslaved.

 

Deontology is juxtaposed to utilitarianism. Util says you evaluate actions based off consequences, Deontology says you evaluate based on the steps to get there. Consider the classic railroad/cart/etc. problem. A train K's flying down the tracks, aimed at five people tied to them. There's another branching track, with only one person tied to it. You control switch and can control who dies. If you do nothing, five people get run over, but if you pull the switch, only one does. There are no other actions available. Util people dictate you throw the switch, because you save more. Deontologists say you can't do that because it means you killed someone in the process.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not since the 90's. About the only relevant theory is perms, but the efficacy of those is rooted in the lit base and not debate theory.

For the structure of the 2ac you want

Fw: the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the case against the K to prevent mooting of the 1ac

Link defense: Explain why your aff shouldn't link to X. If it's cap, explain why even socialists would build wind farms or whatever.

Permutation: once you've established warrants for why you don't link, you can justify the permutation

Impact defense/turns: what you want to go for depends on your aff. Big stick policy aff's should probably impact turn things like cap K's, while caring soft left aff's should be aiming to go for the perm and some defense.

Alt fails/turns: explain why (preferably with cards) the alt will fail. For instance, if you're hitting that dumb Zizek reject cap to clear an epistemic lens alt, make arguments about why trying to create a cap free space failed (occupy, Seattle protests, hippy communes) and then read a card or two about how it causes other anti-spam movements with specific strategies to backlash.

Thanks that's helpful. When I went up against that Heidegger K, I tried to sever the link so I know that. I kinda understand perms, that you're saying you can go with the kritik and still go with the aff, but how do you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks that's helpful. When I went up against that Heidegger K, I tried to sever the link so I know that. I kinda understand perms, that you're saying you can go with the kritik and still go with the aff, but how do you do that?

(Check my revised post for alternate definitions of the terms you first posited if curious)

 

There are a variety of different perms, and they function the same way as with counterplans. Think about the K as a non UQ DA with a CP that generates uq for the DA. Perms function on the level of the alternative and plan. For instance, you could say

 

(Perm do both)

Perm do the plan and reject capitalism

 

(Perm do the alt then plan)

Perm reject cap and then do the plan

 

(Perm all other instances + double bind)

Perm do the plan and reject capitalism in all other instances. Double bind, either the alternative is strong enough to overcome any residual link to the plan which means there's no impact, or the alt would fail which means you vote aff.

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...