Introduction to Kritiks

Ryan Galloway
Samford University

K Lecture Overview

Introduction to Kritiks

Answering Kritiks

Kritik Tricks

Kritiks specific/likely on the topic

Kritik

Kritik comes from the German meaning to

criticize

It is an argument that challenges the

philosophical or linguistic assumptions of the
Affirmative case

Example: Why would it be wrong to say

mankind when referring to human beings?

Structure of the Kritik

Kritiks usually start with a framework debate

or a question regarding what the debate is
about

Kritiks often say the debate is not about a

utilitarian framework

The debate might be about educating people or

about how to best use language

Link Debate

Kritiks, just like disads, have links

The difference is the link is not always to the

plan

It might be to any language or assumption

made in your evidence

Example: If you assume that the environment

should be protected because of benefits to
humansthat is a link to a kritik

Impact

Just like disads, Kritiks have impacts

Unlike disads, Kritiks often have deontological

impactsor something you should reject no
matter what.

Can someone think of a deontological

argument?

Impact

Kritiks often also have systemic impactsmeaning

the continuation of a system causes oppression or
even makes extinction inevitable

The textbook example of this is the Capitalism Kritik

it will argue

Capitalism is unethical

Capitalism is the root cause of environmental

destruction

Can someone think of a reason why this might be

true?

Alternative

Kritiks usually have an alternative.

The best way to think about the Kritik

alternative is to think of it like a counterplan

An alternative is often to withdraw from an

oppressive system or to rethink the oppressive
structure

What is an alternative to the capitalism Kritik?

Kritik Example

A) Framework: The judge is not a policy maker

the judge is a critical intellectual assessing
the assumptions of the affirmative

B) Link: The plan upholds the profit motive of

capitalismit treats immigrants as cogs in a
machine merely makes capitalism look
sustainable and environmentally friendly

C) Impact: Capitalism is the root cause of

environmental destructionextinction is
inevitable unless we challenge capitalism.

D) Alternative: The judge should intellectually

withdraw support from the system of capitalism

Answering the K

Solvency: Alt doesnt solve

Theory: Defend your framework

Offense: Prove why your affirmative is a good

idea, and their theory is a bad one

Perms: Combine the affirmative and the

alternative

Alt doesnt solve the

case

Primary way to beat the K is to prove the alt

doesnt solve the case

Then win the case outweighs

Pragmatism: You should assess what can

pragmatically be done

Specificity: Prove that the alternative wont

solve the specifics of the case

Why does challenging capitalism solve for

aquaculture?

Theory

Framework is usually the #1 theory argument

Debate should only be policy

AFF choice

Resolution is a policy resolution

Fairness: infinite # of philosophies & discursive arguments

Weigh our AFF

Vague alts can get you somewhere as wellusually as a

solvency deficit to the kritik

Cross-X can the alternative ever do the AFF? If so, why is the
alternative inconsistent with the AFF?

Offense

Best way to generate offense is to indict the

theory

Argue capitalism is good, argue neo-liberalism

is good

Also author theory arguments like Heideggers

theory leads to Nazism etc.

Perms

Always, always permute a kritik

Argue do both and do the plan and all nonmutually exclusive parts of the alt.

What is the difference?

If the alternative can do the plan, then do the

alternative also works.

Example of a Kritik FrontLine

1) The Kritik doesnt solve the case:

A) The Kritik doesnt solve for agriculture

B) The Kritik doesnt save the economy

2) The debate should be about is the plan better than a policy

alternative or the status quo

A) AFF choice makes us flexible to be both a policy and a

kritik debater

B) The resolution is a policy resolutionit asks what should be

done

C) The implication is to reject the kritik or allow us to weigh

our AFF

3) Capitalism is goodit solves for the environment

4) Permute: do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts

of the alternative

K-Bombs

K-bombs is my nickname for the argument that

certain Kritik arguments if you drop, you almost
automatically lose

If debating the K team, you must answer these

arguments

If you are the K teamdrop K-bombs

K-Bomb 1:
Unpredictability

We cant evaluate consequences usually the

experts are as accurate as monkeys throwing
darts at a dartboard.

Why is it important not to drop this?

Usually you answer this by saying that while

there are no absolute truths, there can be
limited truths.

K-Bomb 2: Ethics are all

that matter

This is the second side of the consequences

debatethat they dont matter.

Deontologywe have certain principles we

should not violateno matter what.

To answer this, you have to win that

consequences are key to ethics

K-Bomb 3: Ontology
Comes First

Ontology is the theory of being

It is the I in the I think

Are we corrupted people, are we evil?

Famous card from Zimmerman that ontological

damnation o/ws nuclear war.

Answer this by saying we will never get to a discussion

of consequences, because we can think about ontology
forever.

K-Bomb 4: Epistemology
Comes First

Epistemology is how we know what we know.

How do you know that capitalism saves the

environment?

Perhaps our sources are corrupted or biased or

have incentives to create war

The best answer is to say that even if we dont

know everything, we can know some things.

K-Bomb 5: Fiat is an
illusion

Fiat is the assumption that the plan should

happen

This argument says that the plan will never

actually happen

Argues that because the plan never happens,

you can claim no impacts from the plan

Frequently run with the representations are all

that matter K-bomb

K-Bomb 6: Representations
are all that matter

This is the discourse is all that matters argument.

They say that all we are doing is talking

They say that representations create reality

Can you give an example of representations

creating reality?

Best answer is to say that an over focus on

representations distracts from policy

K-Bomb 7: x is the root

cause of everything

x is something like capitalism, patriarchy,

statism, etc.

Challenge that anything is the root cause of

everything else.

There are proximate causes, but no root causes

K-Bomb 8: There is no value

to life in your framework

Usually this is because you justify killing to

save

How could the affirmative justify killing to save?

Challenge this by saying that life always has

meaning

K-Bomb 9: Your impact is

inevitable

They will say that a certain system makes

extinction inevitable

This means you should try or die you should

try to fight capitalism, patriarchy, etc or we all
die

Prove that extinction is not inevitablelife is

getting betterthe environment is getting
better