Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter Fourteen - The Kritik

8/12/2019 Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter Fourteen - The Kritik

1/21


http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm

Chapter 14

The Kritik

Is the kritik another example of advanced debate theory?

Definitely. The kritik has its roots in German philosophy from the 18th century onward, especially in thewritings of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). The application of this style ofreasoning in debate further borrows from "post-modern" academic writing, notably post-structuralist literarycriticism, deconstruction, and the Critical Legal Studies movement. This is all heady, cutting-edge radical

stuff. It wont surprise you to find outas well see laterthat the theory of the kritik is not yet welldeveloped, and is poorly understood by many judges.

Even the word we will use is tentative. "Kritik" is the German word for the English "critique," and bothwords are pronounced the same way. But debaters already use "critique" to mean the assessment a judgegives after the round, and so many debate authorities use the German spelling to distinguish the new term

from the old one. But some experts use the English spelling, instead, so dont be confused if youencounter that variation during research in speech journals and Internet debate sites.

The use of this type of argument within debate circles is fairly new. Kritiks appeared on the college debatecircuit in September 1991. By the spring of 1992, kritiks had already spread to high school policy debate,and specifically were being used in Michigan high school debate by Fall 1992. Clearly, the kritik is astrategic approach which has not yet had time to mature. It is unclear whether the high school communitywill ultimately accept or reject these arguments. This is history being made as you watch: the last majorrevolutions in debate theory were the introductions of justification in the 1970s and judging paradigms in

the 1980s, so we are due for another challenge to debate traditions. Moreover, even if your schools squaddoes not encourage kritiks, other schools throughout the state are using them and may try to use them

against you to gain a competitive advantage, so it is in your best interest to have a basic understanding ofkritik theory.

What is the kritik?

Kritiks are philosophically-based arguments which question fundamental assumptions underlying thearguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate. Since the kritik asks for the judge to evaluatethe round based on the evaluation of the kritik, we can consider these arguments to be varieties of (formal)

decision-rules. Generally, the kritik is a tool for the Negative team against the Affirmative but there areinstances where Affirmatives can apply the kritik, too. Authorities suggest that successful kritiks have fivecharacteristics:

1. The kritik questions the fundamental assumptions of the round. It looks at issues lurking withinthe presentation of one side of the debate, rather than taking the presentation at its face value. Theresult of this is that the debate shifts away from policy discussion, often toward discussing questionsof fact or value.

2. The kritik is generally presented as an absolute argument. It demands a yes-or-no response fromthe judge, rather than an impact which is weighed against other arguments.

3. The kritik may be non-unique. The side presenting a kritik may indulge in the same "hiddenassumptions" for which it is kritiking the opposing team. They will argue, however, that a decision on


2/21


http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2

the kritik can mean a lost debate only for the opposing team.4. Kritiks are non-comparative. The kritiks only questions and objects. It does not seek to present an

alternative. At most, a kritik can suggest a vague realm of alternatives but not specify which oneshould be selected. A "kritik of capitalism," for instance, may urge that capitalism be rejected, and the

Affirmative plans capitalistic underpinnings would be rejected as well. But the Negative presentingthe argument would not have to urge for a specific replacement for capitalism, such as fascism orsocialism.

5. Kritiks are a priori (Latin: "from the beginning") voting issues. Since they represent fundamental

considerations on which presentations are built, they demand to be evaluated before substantiveissues such as inherency, topicality, or disadvantages are considered. If the bedrock of thosearguments is faulty, as the kritik suggests, then we can discard the arguments without looking at themin detail.

Negatives will find that kritiks have some features in common with more conventional arguments. Often,the argument embedded in a kritik could be recast, using the same evidence, as a counterplan, disadvantage

topicality challenge, or a response to one of the Affirmatives stock issue burdens. Strictly on its own,though, the kritik should be distinguished from any of these. Its not a counterplan, because its absoluteand non-comparative. Its not a disad, because its not unique and its a prioriit must be evaluatedbefore disadvantages. Topicality arguments also claim to be absolute and a priori, but they are also uniqueand comparative where kritiks are not.

It should be obvious from this discussion that kritiks are naturally generic arguments. They do not look atthe details that the other side has presented, but rather at the core reasons underlying the opposing case, orstyle and diction of the presentation.

Help! I dont think Im understanding this at all.

If you are new to the concept of kritiks, everything weve discussed so far might have been veryconfusing. Lets try looking at kritiks another way. Manynot all, but perhaps mostkritiks can beviewed almost like a type of disadvantage argument. However, while the traditional disad says the plan, ifput into effect, would have serious, harmful side-effects in the real world, a kritik says that the way theopposing team (usually Affirmatives) have presented their arguments is having a bad effect on the process

of debate or on the participantsdebaters and the judgein the round. These bad effects are so seriousthat the judge ought to give the offending side a loss.

A great analogy is available to us: the use of fraudulent evidence. Suppose that the Negative team canconclusively prove the Affirmative team made up evidence used in the 1AC, or altered the content of a realquotation. The Negatives will ask the judge for a decision in their favor, on the grounds that fraudulent

evidence destroys the intellectual foundations of debate. In response, Affirmatives might try strategiessimilar to "minimizing the link" of a disadvantage, arguing that the violation was relatively minor ("Really,

its only one card," they might say, or "We got this from a handbook, and we didnt know the handbookeditors were not ethical.") Or Affirmatives might try to limit the impact of the violation, much like theywould do against a disadvantage ("Throw out the bad evidence, sure, but remember the evidence we had in

our extensions. Thats still valid, so we can still win our inherency position and the debate.") How will thejudge decide this? When it is proven that one side in a debate is using fraudulent evidence, virtually alljudges will give that side the loss, even if that side did the superior job of debating. The issue of debate

ethics is more important than the game-world issues of argumentation and fiat, and judges feel its moreimportant to punish the unethical side with a loss rather than award to the same debaters a victory based ontheir legitimate evidence. Indeed, it could be argued that, by using bogus evidence, the Affirmative has


3/21



robbed even their valid evidence and argumentation of its credibility.

Okay, now lets see how this serves as a model for a kritik. The Affirmative propose a plan that will bebrought into effect by the federal government of the United States (no surprise therealmost allresolutions require federal action). In response, the Negative team proposes a Kritik of Statism. Byproposing federal action, the 1NC says, the Affirmatives are implicitly saying that government is legitimate

they are endorsing the idea of government. (Note that this is the equivalent of a plan link argument in adisadvantage; this is the trigger for the rest of the kritik). But1NC goes on to claimgovernment

should not be reflexively assumed to be legitimate. Governments are necessarily coercive: they force peopleto do things they dont want to do, and this destroys human freedom. Governments become tools,therefore, for one class of peoplethe rulersto oppress and control their fellow citizens, to silence theirvoices. And even worse, governments arent real. "Government" is merely a fiction, a word we use todescribe a collection of people all believing and acting together; as far as natural rights go, individualpersons have more rights than a make-believe concept such as "government" whose primary purpose is todeprive real people of their freedoms. Of course, the Negative speaker provides evidence for each of these

crucial points. (This becomes the equivalent of the internal links of a disadvantage the detaileddescription of what proceeds from the trigger). Finally, we come to the "impact" of the kritik: 1NC says thatblind acceptance of government stifles our ability to conceive of other options. It numbs us to the

alternatives. The impact is felt in the debate round, as the debaters become programmed by the language of"government" to be more accepting of government rights over peoplesrights. What is the recourse? Theonly alternative to passive acceptance of "government"which has just been shown to be evil is toreject the idea of government unless it can prove its worth. And the way to "reject government" is to rejectthe Affirmative approach, which is tainted throughout by the passive acceptance of government. So the

judge is urged to vote against the Affirmative, not based on the merits or demerits of the plan, but becausethe way the Affirmatives present their ideas requires a rejection.

I admit, the analogy between a kritik and a disadvantage is not a perfect onebut there are enoughsimilarities to give the new student some idea of what kritik argumentation is like. A kritik focuses on ahidden assumption made by the opposition (in the example, the assumption is that government is a

legitimate way of carrying out actions). It exposes that assumption, and argues that the assumption is amistaken or an evil one (in the example, all the "government is bad" analysis serves that purpose). Finally,the kritik tries to have an impact on the round by arguing the mistaken assumption must be rejected, eventhough that means rejecting all the arguments of the opposing side.

Are kritiks good arguments to use?

Lets postpone the question of whether kritiks are strategically wise for a moment. Instead, consider thequestion: Is the kritik a legitimate strategy in high school debate? In other word, should it be permissible to

develop and run kritiks?

That really is something that needs to be decided from round to round, but I would argue the answer isyes

at least for Negatives. And there are several ways to arrive at this conclusion. First of all, the Negativeteams only duty is to clash with the Affirmative at some point. Sure, most Negatives will argue on thebasis of the traditional stock issues, but they are not confined to those. Topicality attacks and counterplansare not really relevant to stock issues analysis, yet Negatives can win on that basis. Counterwarrants and

justification arguments shift the debating ground away from the Affirmative teams specific arguments andexamine the naked resolution. In many cases, kritiks just carry this one step forward, and look to the

assumptions embedded within the resolution, or within the Affirmatives style of presentation. Negatives


4/21



can argue that, if the resolution itself is based on a flawed assumption, then nothing flowing from theresolution need be debated, since it, too, will be flawed.

Another argument on legitimacy: One position that is central to many (but not all) kritiks is the rejection offiat in favor of other issues. Fiat power is a mythical, utopian concept. No matter what arguments are

presented in the round, were just playing a game in debate. The judge does not really have the power tomodify the status quo if she votes Affirmative. The only people really affected by what occurs in the debateround are the four debaters and the judge. Think back to our example of evidence falsification in the

previous section. The moral there is that when issues arise that affect the legitimacy of the debate activityitself, we are accustomed to overlook all arguments in the round and decide the debate on other grounds.Those who favor kritik arguments claim they have something of the same legitimacy to overlook the topicissues of the debate round in favor of examining the validity of the debate experience.

A final argument on legitimacy: A number of highly regarded debate theorists begin with the premise thatjudges should listen with an open mind to any arguments debaters present, and evaluate them on their meritwithout regard to preconceptions. While this looks like a plea for debate evaluators to avoid judgeintervention, the argument really has more radical implications: judges ought to be (at least initially)receptive to all theoretical positions which may arise in the round. In other words, tabula rasa and games-playing judge paradigms are the only truly legitimate judging philosophies. Anything else imposes the

judges opinions of "what debate ought to be" on the round, and forecloses some arguments either teammight want to make; in turn, that may mean that before the round begins, some teams will be doomed tolose because the judge will not accept their favored argument.

While not all debate judges accept this reasoning (and there are arguments against it), there is a growingconsensus within the debate community that debate theory is not written in stone, but that theoreticalarguments should be evaluated as they arise. And that, ultimately, is why kritiks are legitimate arguments fodebaters to explore.

Now answer the other part: Are kritiks strategically wise?

Although kritiks might be legitimate arguments to develop, that does not mean debaters are automatically

going to win the round by running one. Just because an idea is new does not mean its good. (Hey! Isnthat what Negatives are saying all the time?) If you, as an advanced debater, want to run a kritik argument,you have some massive obstacles ahead of you. Your coach may be one: the more time you spend playing

with abstruse philosophical arguments, the less attention youre going to devote to the real issues of theresolution. Your coach may forbid you to develop kritik arguments until you have mastered the topic areafirst.

Second, you must consider: how much do you want to win? Because kritiks are novel types of arguments,and foreign to the experience of many judges, you can expect to lose some debates even though you know

you ran a solid kritik that was not effectively refuted by the opposition. Perhaps the judge didntunderstand the argument, or she rejected it out of hand. Perhaps the kritik isnt even discussed clearly onthe ballot. You should not try to run a kritik unless you have the maturity to handle an unjust decisionagainst you.

Third: Can you handle the research burden? Most kritiks arise from philosophical issues, and philosophymakes for very difficult reading. A few of the lesser-read (and more expensive) debate handbooks now

include kritik arguments and evidence, but even that material makes for dense reading. And you wontunderstand handbook kritiks thoroughly enough to handle refutation unless you do independent study. I


5/21



dont care if youre a genius debater, researching a single kritik argument is gonna put you so deeplyinto ponderous and subtle reasoning that you may be overwhelmed. At the very least, you will feel like a

novice again, exploring an alien dimension of argument for the first time. Its an excitingbutdemandingexperience. Decide early whether you want to make that kind of commitment.

What are some examples of kritiks?

What follows is an exploration of some of the kritik arguments which may be developed and presented inthe course of a debate season. The list is worded to show how kritiks may be applied against the

Affirmative, butas we mentioned earliersome of them can be reworked to apply against Negativearguments, instead. This list includes common generic kritiks that can appear from year to year; eachspecific debate resolution will also open up certain other potential kritik arguments specific to the annualtopic.

This list is not (repeat: not) a recommendation to use any of the suggestions. It should be clear from thepreceding paragraphs that, although I think kritiks are legitimate, I have doubts as to whether they best fulfilthe educational mission of high school debate.

ANTHROPOCENTRISM

Aristotle was wrong: man is not "the measure of all things." Focusing too much on humanneeds andproblems prevents our appreciating the essential oneness of life and thwarts a transformation to biocentrismor ecocentrism. Inasmuch as the concept of privacy is usually construed only to mean relationships betweenhumans, a concentration on this issue destroys our ability to put human concerns on an equal footing withthose of nonhuman animals, or plants, or other aspects of the natural world. And yet those larger concerns

are obviously more important. Human rights and values are "socially constructed"they are phantomswith no real meaning outside each society. The relationship of people within the ecosystem is not a socialfiction, though, but an immediate concern that is being ignored, endangering us all.

AUTARCHY

A key element of responsible government is reliance on public input and understanding. A government that

is not responsive to its people is tyrannical. But this responsiveness is best understood as aprocessthedue process of democracyrather than as a result.

Because the Affirmative plan is implemented by fiat, it serves as a model of despotic rule rather than ofdemocratic due process; the plan is a ukase, or edict, rather than a legitimate policy proposal.Implementation in this way serves to numb the debaters to the value of their democratic heritage; theAffirmatives should lose because they hurt the cause of the democratic process.

CAPITALISM

The thesis of this kritik is that capitalism is evil. It dehumanizes people, because it does not think of them ascomplex, individual persons but rather as "consumers" to be manipulated into making purchases or workingfor minimal rewards. The capitalist ethic reduces people to things, which flies in the face of centuries ofmoral philosophy. Promoting capitalism frustrates our efforts to look beyond the capitalist mentality, andthus must be rejected. Plans which operate within the capitalist system are corrupt and evil, and must berejected so we can transcend the impulse to treat all things and all people as commodities.

COMMUNITARIANISM

Many debate approaches are grounded in the need for collective action on behalf of the community. The

kritik of communitarianism begins with the obvious statement that there is no such thing as "community"


6/21



there are only individual people, separate by nature, who choose to cooperate for mutual benefit as they seefit. Failure to recognize individuality is both offensive (reducing people to socialist, robot workers or todrones in the Borg Collective) and counterproductive (discouraging individual efforts to excel). Argumentswhich give priority to the group over the individual set up a mindset which hurts people and hurts the questfor the common good. For this reason, arguments based on common good, communitarianism, or decreasesin individual rights (such as privacy) taint the whole position and merit rejection.

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

This kritik applies to a number of international resolutions. The United States is trying to impose its valueson other nations. Thats wrong, because theres no grounding for belief that U.S. values are superior tothose of other nations. This argument is the same as the Kritik of Ethical Imperatives (discussed below), by

argued at the level of relations between nations. You should not be surprised to see this position arguedperhaps with slight variationsunder different names: Kritik of American Exceptionalism, Kritik ofHegemony, or Kritik of U.S. Nationalism. All of these will make the same point: The U.S. believes itself to

be uniquely special. Promoting this ideaasserting "American leadership"is just a grand way ofcovering up American bullying and American force.

DEMOCRACY

Advocates say that one of the key reasons for U.S. intervention in other nations is that it reinforces a climate

of peace that bolsters democratic traditions. This would seem to be a good thing, right? This kritik says no.Democracy is predicated on the belief that the opinions of hundreds of people are all more likely to becorrect than the opinions of one person. Is there any evidence that this has everbeen the case? Instead, wesee that the prejudices of the majority become the policies of the government; those citizens who haveovercome these prejudices are isolated from power. Elected officials inevitably cultivate special interestswhich can deliver votes to keep them in power. Democracy is the most oppressive form of government,because the lone voice of dissent is helpless against the tyranny of the majority.

DETERMINISM

We assume that every event has a cause. But have we ever know the complete list of causes for even oneevent, anywhere, at any time? Even if we did, we cannot prove that causality is a universal truth. There maybe some spontaneous lapses from the rule of cause and effect. In fact, modern physics has determined thatsome interactions between subatomic particles violate our common notions of causality, at least for a brieftime. If causality cannot be relied on at the micro-level, then it may not be true on the macro-level, either.We must reject anything which may be untrue, so notions of causality have to be discarded. However, thatimplies that all causal claims in debate (inherency, solvency) must be rejected, unless the team proposingthem can prove that causality is real.

DETERRENCE

Threats are morally equivalent to violence. If it is wrong to do something, then it is just as wrong to intend

to do that thing, meaning its wrong to sincerely threaten to do it. (A concrete example may make this

clear. Its wrong to kill. Therefore it is wrong to intendto killeven if you are stoppedand itswrong to sincerely threatento killbecause that just publicizes your evil intention).

But sincere threats are the keystone of deterrence policy. If it is wrong to use nuclear weapons in war (andalmost all philosophers believe it is), then it is wrong to intend to use nuclear weapons and wrong tothreaten to do so. Thus, possessing nuclear weapons is in itself a passive threat and thus morally wrong. Theimplications for debate are as follows: the team that is relying on the existing framework of nucleardeterrence and arms-control treaties is supporting a morally untenable, or even evil, position. Theirarguments must be rejected as tainted.

But deterrence is not only nuclear. Is it wrong to let an innocent person suffer, or even starve? Everyone


7/21



says yes. If that is so, then it is wrong to impose economic sanctions on a nation if those sanctions mightresult in starvation or deprivation. By the logic above, even threateningeconomic sanctions is equally aswrong. An Affirmative plan or Negative counterplan which relies on economic punishment if a nationrefuses to cooperate with the plan is morally tainted and must be rejected.

ETHICAL IMPERATIVES

This kritik springs from the term "should" in the resolution. The realm of "ought" is divorced from the realm

of "is." Just because we cando something does not establish that we shoulddo it. Two thousand years ofphilosophical speculation have not allowed us to discover any single moral truth or ethical rule. To claimotherwise is to commit "the naturalistic fallacy": the false deduction of rules from mere facts. Since there is

no legitimate ground for arguing values, worth, or needsor the policies derived from themtheAffirmative side of the debate rests on the false premise that proving effective action couldbe taken issufficient to prove it shouldbe taken.

EVIDENCE

Think of the advertisements you have seen on television or in print: "Four out of five dentists surveyedrecommended ," and so on. These all demonstrate a flaw, a logical fallacy, called an appeal toauthority. The listeners or readers are encouraged to suspend critical thinking and to follow blindly the

recommendations of a supposed expert. If you pick up almost any reference book on logic, propaganda, orrhetoric, you will find a discussion of how the appeal to authority is an invalid argument.

Now consider debate. The chief way opposing teams "prove" their arguments is strictly by an appeal toauthority! In other words, the use of a widely-recognized form of corrupt argument is central to our activity

This can be used as a particularly insidious kritik. After the Affirmative presents their case, the FirstNegative explains the fallacy of the appeal to authority. The Negative position would be that theAffirmative use of "evidence" corrupts the development of critical thinking skills in the debaters and in the

judge, programming us all to accept advertising messages at face value. Since the appeal to authority isinvalid, not only must we wipe all the Affirmative evidence out of the debate, we must also erase the

Affirmative arguments, since they were developed within this corrupt framework. Only by rejecting theAffirmative (with a loss in the round) can we score a victory for logical and critical thinking.

But wait: Affirmatives can try this too, if theyre willing to go out on a limb. They would have to run avery straightforward, mainstream case, relying on commonly known flaws in arms control policy. And this is importantthey present no evidence in 1AC. If the Negatives fall into the trap of pointing out thelack of evidence, and (worse yet, for them) read evidence of their own, then the Affirmatives makeessentially the same argument described in the paragraph above, calling on the judge to reject the Negativestance. On the other hand, without evidence, how can the Affirmative win? This must be explained by2AC: if we cannot trust quotations from so-called experts, then we can only fall back on personal

experience. Thats why the case was so mainstream in the first place, in the belief that the judge (who hashad considerable life experience) will recognize the merits of the 1AC based on his or her personal life.That gives the Affirmative two ways to claim victory: either because the kritik invalidates the Negative

approach, or because the judges experience tells him or her that the Affirmative is basically true.

FEMINISM

This is another kritik which would likely be presented by the Affirmative under certain resolutions, inresponse to a Negative disadvantage based on feminist principles. However, it is also marginally likely thatAffirmatives may adopt a case based on a feminist view of the topic area, and that would provide theNegatives a link to this kritik.


8/21



The kritik claims that the "critical feminist" stance is intrinsically divisive and incoherent. Feminism claimsthere are inescapable differences between men and women in modes of thought and in being. At the sametime, feminism purports to believe in equality across gender lines. In practical terms, it makes that goal of

cooperative equality unattainable, by denying that mens thoughts and feelings have parity with those ofwomen. Indeed, rather than abolishing hierarchies, critical feminism merely wants the womyns positionto be given precedence. The only way to work toward the ideal of equality is to reject the mindset of criticafeminism. Accepting arguments based on a feminist perspective would undermine that effort, so the teamadopting the feminist position must lose the round of debate.

INDETERMINISM

The world is a clockwork; every action is a consequence of past events via immutable physical laws. Evenindividual choices are the result of electrical current flows in the human brain, and those currents are theresult of precisely determined chemical reactions. Any being which knew the state of every atom in theuniverse at any one particular moment would be able to calculate the course of events, everywhere, to anyfuture point in time, with absolute precision. The fact that no real person has the perfect knowledge to makesuch predictions does not refute the conclusion that the future is predestined. The future is alreadydetermined by the present, but veiled from our knowledge. Free will is an illusion based on this ignorance.

In terms of debate, theres no use proposing alternatives (such as the Affirmative plan) if the course offuture events is already determined.

INDUCTION

Deductive reasoning is a dead end. Its conclusions give us no new information. Consider the classicexample of a syllogism: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." Now, thededuction is valid according to the rules of logic, but whether it is true depends on how well the premises(the first two sentences) correspond to the real world. Valid and true deductions already have theirconclusions implicit in the first premise; we must already know that Socrates is mortal before we can trulymake the claim that "all men are mortal."

But inductive reasoning, or generalizations, do allow us to discover new truths. Consider the possible

conclusion, "All crows are black." The way we prove this is by induction we look at crows, and eachone we see that is black makes us a little more certain that the generalization is correct; each serves as aconfirming example. Of course, any single counterexample will disprove the inductive conclusion, so themore examples we look at, the greater our confidence in the conclusion. As a counterpoint to this, drawingconclusions from just a few examples is unrealistic, since the likelihood of finding a counterexample in justa few trials is low.

Now, all acts of induction are innately uncertain, since we may not have found the rare exceptions to therule. Somewhere, for instance, there may be an albino crow that nobody has ever seen. Therefore any claimfrom examples is suspect and must be rejected. As a debate kritik, this argument suggests that any causal orempirical claim (harm, inherency, solvency) must be rejected, because it is based on too small a sample set

to test the claim adequately. Or, to take it one step further, the Affirmative case itself is just a single examplewhich is unable to prove the general truth that the resolution should be adopted.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

A branch of legal thinking called Critical International Relations Theory has posed a number of challengesto conventional interpretations of how countries interact with one another. Many of the ideas from CIRT

could be developed into plausible debate kritiks. Here, well examine four:

Nations do not exist. This is sometimes called the Kritik of Geopolitics; it also shares a lot ofargumentation with the Kritik of Security we will discuss a bit later in this document. The thesis: Nation-states are merely human conventions. There is nothing an observer can point to in the real world to show


9/21



where the borders of one country must end, or to distinguish a person as being from one nation rather thananother. Indeed, all of human history has shown that national borders are fluid, and nations arise ordisintegrate freely. The distinctive quality of nation-states is that they allow citizens to reject non-citizens as"alien" or "foreign," and thus somehow subhuman. Anything which perpetuates the myth of the nation-statethus perpetuates this "us vs. them" mentality which is the ultimate source of all war. Since the Affirmativeteam has bought into the nation-state myth, rejecting the myth requires rejecting the Affirmative position.

"Foreign policy" is oppressive. To assume that other nations can be bullied, intimidated, or cajoled is to

assume that other nations cannot legitimately have a difference of opinion with the United States. In otherwords, the ways of living chosen by other nations are implicitly rejected; anything that is not American isnecessarily inferior. This is the vilest form of nationalism, because it rejects at the very outset all opinions ofall other nations and peoples.

Anticommunism equals oppression of belief. People have the innate right to be wrong. American policythat is aimed at opposing communism denies the remaining communist nations their natural right to choose,even if that choice would be misguided. Worse, if communism is truly suppressed, then we will lose theopportunity for the errors of communism to be exposed in the free marketplace of ideas. Thus,anticommunist actions will only serve to cloak communism in shadows, rather than truly neutralize it.

Finally, it is but a tiny step from being opposed to communism to being opposed to communists that is, a

move from opposing a viewpoint toward opposing, and oppressing, people because of their beliefs. Note:Although we used anticommunism as an example in this paragraph, any U.S. foreign policy program whichis pursuit of a specific philosophical goal would generate a parallel argument. In many cases, this could be

combined with a kritik of rhetoricfor example, if your opponents argue that fundamentalist Islamicmovements pose a special danger for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign aid is immoral. At best, American foreign aid works much as a lollipop is used to pacify a cryinginfant. A better analogy might be that foreign aid is a form of bribery, through which the American

government convinces another nation to do something which may not be in its best interests at least, todo something the receiving nation would not have done without the bribe. Even worse, foreign aid now ispredominantly in the form of loans and loan guarantees, and the receiving nation is often formally requiredto spend the loans on purchases of American goods. This means that "foreign aid" is really a marketing toolto ensnare other nations in a web of debt, making them captive clients for American big business. The termfor this is economic imperialism. Any plan or counterplan providing foreign aid must be rejected.

MATERIALISM

I know I exist, because I can directly perceive my own mind at work. In a sense, I can recognize my own

identity, my ego. Its not enough to say that I can sense things in the world around me, for I know myeyes, ears, and other sensory organs can be easily deceived. But because I can sense my own thinkingprocesses directly, I am sure of my own existence.

Im not so sure about anything else. Ive experienced visual illusions and dreams before, so I know thatat least some of my experiences are not "real" to other people. I have read scientific reports of people whohave had electrodes planted in their brains who suddenly "taste" a familiar flavor, or "hear" sounds, or even"experience" hallucinations, all triggered by a particular trickle of current through their brains. Perhaps these

illusions are more extensive than I have realized. Its possible that the world of my perceptions is allillusion. Maybe no other people or things exist, and Im one of those test subjects being zapped on anexperimental tableor a disembodied brain in a vat.

As a debate kritik, it is clear that theres no motive to take imaginary actions to help nonexistent people;only if the opposing team can prove that the material world of our perceptions is real, and not ahallucination, do they earn the right to have their arguments considered on their merits.


10/21



NORMATIVITY (traditional version)All values are relative. All values are merely preferences: when you say that "privacy is good," you areexpressing your personal belief, just as "pizza is good" really speaks about your preference, not the intrinsicqualities of pizza.

Whenever you give one value precedence, even by using the word "should," you establish an oppressivepower-structure that disenfranchises dissent. But debate is really a conversation between four debaters and a

judge, and the lesson we need to come away with is that dissent is valuable, for it allows us to investigate

alternatives. Before we can look at the game-world of debate, with its imaginary concepts such as "fiat," weneed to look at how the debate acts on those five people involved in the debate round. Proposing argumentsgrounded in "norms," or moral rules, is offensive to the personal growth of these five people, and should berejected. Affirmatives ought to lose, because they set oppressive value-norms by telling people what they"should" do.

NORMATIVITY(postmodern version)

Normative statementsthose dealing with values, obligations, or "shoulds"assume that human beingsare free-willed, politically effective individual beings. But in reality, political power is held by impersonalbureaucratic forces not subject to democratic control. Trying to decide what should be done is both uselessand deceptive (it masks the political impotence of individuals). The only way to free ourselves from the

illusion that political action is worthwhileor even feasibleis the rejection of proposals which call forpolitical action, such as the Affirmative plan.

NUCLEAR DISCOURSE

This is becoming a staple in some debate circlesso much so that the argument is sometimes referred to athe "nuke-speak" kritik. This is a variation on the kritik of rhetoric discussed below.

Reality, it is argued by some post-modernists, is socially constructed. What this means that the limits of whawe perceive as possible or desirable are bounded by what we as humans acknowledge in our thinking andour discourse (broadly, our writing and speech). Talking about nuclear war or nuclear weapons, in thisview, allows us to think about mass murder intellectually, without engaging our emotions or our moralsense; in turn, such talk desensitizes us to the prospect of using such horrible weapons. Any team that bringup the idea of nuclear war in a debate round is actually making such war more likely, by making theprospect of nuclear war less "unthinkable." For this crime against human interests, the team talking aboutnuclear war should lose.

A variant of this argument is sometimes called the Kritik of Technostrategic Discourse, and that particularvariation may be more generally useful under some resolutions. Any talk about the technology of arms orarms control promotes a viewpoint of power as the ultimate end of international relations, this kritik says.But highlighting power issues just heightens the risk that competing interests will worry that their powerwill erode, promoting conflict between the parties. So talking about technological weapons promotes furthe

conflict and increases the danger that such weapons will actually be used.

PATRIARCHY

Political and governmental decisions, particularly at the federal level, are almost always being made by menThus the governmental establishment is a means to perpetuating the second-class citizenship of women (or

"womyn")not only in the United States, but throughout the world. By working within the system, theAffirmative blinds us to the possibility of breaking free from male domination. Rejecting the Affirmativeallows for change.

In years dealing with foreign affairs, there is the prospect for a Feminist Kritik of International Relations tobe developed from the traditional Kritik of Patriarchy. The concept here is that any consideration of


11/21



international relations is really gendered discourse, because it is heavily dependent on masculine ideas ofmilitary strength and weaponry. The foreign relations process is tainted with the masculine ideals of "howthings are done": rationalism, causal reasoning, and certainty. A masculine view of international relations

makes war inevitableits a testosterone thing. Acting through conventional tools of internationalrelations means a confirmation of the global patriarchy that oppresses women. This is not to argue that agynocentric method of international relations would necessarily be better. No, the argument here is thatusing the conventional tools makes it impossible for us to believe in (far less use) a feminist approach.

Finally, there is also a Feminist Kritik of Arms Control that develops from the same root precepts as theissues above. The whole idea of "control" in the phrase "arms control," it is argued, resonates with amasculinist viewpoint. It buys into the dominance and submission perspective which underscores allrelations between the sexes within our patriarchal system. It denies the opportunity for engagement and theuse of a mutual, evolutionary dialogue among all parties to reach a conclusion that satisfies everyone.Anyone talking about "arms control" is promoting a masculine agenda, and a gender-based oppression of

the feminist viewpointand that approach should not be permitted to succeed.

RATIONALITY

Proof isnt enough. Reasoning alone is sterile. Rational thinking breeds rationalizations. There is nocompelling argument that tells us we need to act only on purely logical grounds. So any arguments based on

logical and rational groundsin fact, the act of argumentation itselfneed to be rejected. Since theAffirmative case is grounded in rational reasoning, it cannot be accepted.

Supplemental note: Even though the kritik of rationality has won debate rounds, I dont think itsworkable. If reasoning and argumentation themselves are to be distrusted, doesnt the Negative cut its ownthroat by presenting the kritik as a well-reasoned, rational argument? And if we reject reasoning, doesntthat mean the judge can still vote Affirmative on some other grounds, such as emotion?

RHETORIC

Language can hurt. The language of oppression does violence to self-esteem, even if the oppressed people

do not witness it. Using language or concepts that reflect racism, sexism, or other biases is unacceptableeven if nobody in one of the maligned groups is on hand to take offense, for it desensitizes all participants toprejudice. This examination of language must even extend to the words used in the evidence read by theopposing teams in a round of debate. Sensitivity toward people who face discrimination requires that weoverlook the arguments presented in the round and punish the side using offensive language with a loss;anything less than that is an endorsement of oppression and bigotry.

Supplemental notes: You should take notice that this is one kritik which can be used by Affirmativesagainst Negative rhetoric as well as vice versa. On the face of it, this argument looks like it is an appeal topolitical correctness: the side that uses the wrong language ought to use. But this kritik has probably won

more rounds than any other mentioned on this list. Debaters have won by noting that their opponents

word choice uses the word "black" instead of "African American," for instance; on the China policyresolution, arguments which suggested that Asian culture was inferior to western culture, or that there was a"yellow peril" (even if not expressed in those words) providing a military threat to the United States weresubject to the kritik of rhetoric.

Arguments that deal with certain segments of the world population (such as those living in the Middle East,those living in Asia, those described as "terrorists", or those living in "rogue states") could trigger a rhetorickritik. Of course,failureto provide special mention of any of these groups can alsotrigger a rhetoric kritik,on the basis of "perpetuating the Western pattern of ignoring disenfranchised peoples." Political correctnessbeing as aggressive as it is, one can build a kritik based on the mere mention of these groups (becausementioning them underscores their "special" status and denies them inclusiveness within the general


12/21



population), or based on the failure to mention them (because that just reinforces societys effort toexclude these people). However, even though you can conceivably run this kritik every round, it is bestsaved for clearly abusive situations.

REALPOLITIK

What is called "political realism" in foreign relationsalso known by the German termRealpolitikisthe theory that power and immediate material interest should dominate over all other considerations. TheInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it this way: "Political realism is a theory of political

philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption thatpower is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena.In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilston the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize,their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, thais, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state

of affairsthat nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest."(www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/polreal.htm)

A Kritik of Realpolitik argues that political realism, which is the dominant mode of international relationsthese days, justifies mutual suspicion between nation and inevitably leads to a failure of arms control. If all

nations are striving to achieve advantage over one another, then any action will be perceived as a play foradditional power at the expense of other countries. Suspicion breeds paranoia and becomes a self-fulfillingprophecy. At the same time, by ignoring moral and ethical issues, realpolitik promotes immoral actions inthe international arena. The argument claims that plans (or counterplans) acting through the normalmechanisms of international affairs, or cases which deal with the "threat" posed by other nations, entrenchthe viewpoint of political realism and make us unable to envision alternatives. Because political reason is anamoral vacuum, the debaters operating within that framework must lose.

RIGHTS

Much of this analysis derives from the Critical Legal Studies movement, which challenges conventionallegal theory by "critiquing" (in the same sense debaters "kritik") standard interpretations of fundamental

legal doctrine. Under many resolutions, its likely that Affirmatives may start talking about rightssuchas the right of security, or the right to life. That opens the Affirmative to a kritik about the nature of so-called"rights." Of course, Negatives are not immune to this, either; they may well propose disadvantagesgrounded in various rights. Many attempts at using valuative decision rules can also become links to thiskritik.

Rights are legal fictions. Nobody naturally has a "right" to anything; even life itself is something we sustainonly at the sufferance of other human beings. Government arbitrarily creates rights. This leads to severalproblems. First, the more we talk about rights, the more they begin to seem real things, not just abstractconcepts; this process is called "reification" (REE-if-a-KAYshun). As rights begin to seem more real,

people seem less so, in violation of the moral rule called the categorical imperative, which says that peopleare to be valued above all things or ideas.

Second, the proliferation of rights just leads to more conflicts with other rights that already exist, and there isno way to decide which rights should have precedence. Third, when rights do inevitably collide, society

gives priority to the people who are already in controlso "rights talk" tends to further disenfranchise anddisengage minority opinions, women, and other less-dominant voices in the social structure. The idea thatreality is socially constructed can also apply here. In the debate round, the side advocating rights shouldlose, in order to rid our culture of its futile and harmful obsession with "rights" and to create the possibilityof breaking out of current power-structures.


13/21



SCIENCE

Many Affirmative plans will rely on scientific data and reasoning for justification, and some resolutionsintrinsically deal with science, medicine, or technology. It is just as likely, though, that Negatives willdefend medical and scientific research as issues which could be put in jeopardy by the Affirmative plan.Any approach which seems supportive of science and technology can trigger the kritik of science.

The kritik of science argues that reliance on scientific data and reasoning is bad, because science is defectiveboth in its methodology and in its conclusions. Scientific methodology is mechanistic, reductionist, and

empirical; it views each part of the world as a cog in a great machine, and assumes that truth about theseseparate parts is equally true about the whole. Science treats human beings as the sum of their actionsderived from nerve impulses, thus destroying the humanity of people. This explains why science ignores allhuman values as irrelevant. The upshot is that the workings of science become so aggressively amoral as tobecome immoral; turning away from human values in order to pursue deeper knowledge inevitably resultsin actions that offend human values. Consider: invention of terror weapons, experimentation on animals andunwilling humans, and even recent cloning experiments were all done in the name of pure science, withoutregard for the consequences.

But look also at sciences conclusions, rather than its methodology. The scientific method is always opento reinterpretation of its data. Any conclusions, especially those of a causal nature, are always tentative.

Often they are invalidated by later experiments or by new hypotheses. Scientists readily admit that theanswers given in textbooks a decade ago are now known to be false. Each generation of scientists impose anew world-view on the scientific enterprise, which in turn changes the interpretation of research data; this

was the central argument of Thomas Kuhns The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a groundbreakingbook on the sociology of science.

The conclusion is that use of science is bad for people, and it provides incomplete or incorrect answers toproblems. That justifies rejecting the argumentation of whichever side in the round is relying on science.

SECURITY

The thesis here: The idea of "security" only serves the interest of the state (the government, the nation).

Preservation of the state becomes a value, in the minds of political leaders, which outweighs the interests ofthe people who live in the state. We have seen how this path leads to oppression of people who dare tocriticize the state or its leadership, and the establishment of a hierarchy where those who claim to defend thesecurity of the state are given greater importance over others. In moral terms, since a nation is arbitrarily

defined anyway, the concept of national security elevates a fiction over the real needs of real peopleanargument similar to the one developed on Statism, below. The impact of the kritik is that the debaters whobase their arguments on "security" are establishing an oppressive power-structure and should lose the roundin order to restore the proper emphasis of people over fictional institutions.

SOCIAL CONTROL

It is an innate property of organized society to establish a network of social control over a nationspopulation. If there is not constant pressure to resist the trend, the net of social control will expandusually, but not always, through the direct action of government. This is bad, for as social control expands,individual liberties diminish, and the core value of freedom itself is extinguished. Social control is innately(or, as philosophers would say, "deontologically": by the nature of its existence) evil.

The Negative kritik argues that the Affirmative plan will end the constant pressure against social control,and set us on the slippery slope toward tyranny. It does this by reinforcing the institution of compulsory

education, which is the primary means by which society cages and confines adolescents who are seen asdangerous, pre-human creatures. Affirmative case argumentation may actually feed this argument, if theAffirmative position is that education is important in instilling social rules, civic engagement, and good


14/21



conduct in students.

STATISM

Liberty is the natural and preferred condition of human beings, and it should not be taken away lightly.Government is evil, because it is intrinsically coercive. Cooperating with government makes you an

accomplice to evil. Any debate argument which involves governmental actionfor instance, anyAffirmative planis tainted, because it consolidates the evil that is government and blinds the debaters tothe alternative, which is doing away with government altogether. Since fiat is unrealistic, the Affirmatives

should lose because they are promoting coercive, statist power structures.

TERROR TALK

This is yet another variation on the Kritik of Rhetoric. One mans "terrorist" is another mans "freedomfighter." We have been conditioned to have an emotional response to the idea of terrorism a responsethat short-circuits rational assessment. We can have no conception of people laboring under such greatoppression that they resort to violence as their only means of calling attention to the situation. Instead, welabel such people "terrorists" and use the fear that term evokes as justification for considering those peopleas less than fully human. Using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is an attempt at psychological

manipulation of the audienceand an attempt to cover up the fact of true injustices afflicting these peopleObviously, then, debaters who start using these buzzwords should be chastised for their attempt to

manipulate the debate process, and their arguments must be rejected in order to free us to develop a positiveand inclusive future for all people.

THREAT CONSTRUCTION

Any time we start talking about "security" and "conflict," we are being divisive. The very concept of

security requires us to imagine an "other"some group of people who are distinct from "us"and thento construct for these others the role of "enemy." Even when we acknowledge privately that these are only

potentialenemies, we have still formed the mental picture of them as opponents. In other words, talkingabout security threats makes us consider other people as enemies, and then treat them as enemies, so thatthey respond by becoming enemies. Critics say that this process of constructing threats actually encourages

war, because we are predisposed to take heroic action to vanquish our enemies, even though those peopleare usually only opposing us in our own minds. In debate, the team that begins talk about security threats isactually poisoning our minds, blinding us to the possibility of a truly universal community where nobody isexcluded as an "other."

TREATIES

The problem with treaties is that they presume the legitimacy of nation-states and the legitimacy of

governmentso a combination of ideas from the International Relations and Statism kritik can be appliedhere. In addition, treaties between nations create a "policy lock"the commitments they representbecoming a barrier to any changes in future international relationships. The treaty itself begins to be treated

as more important than the needs of the citizens (indeed, thats what some people are saying today about

the ABM Treaty). Moreover, this effect of treaties serves to bar future generations from making their owndecisions about how they are to be governed; instead, they are coerced by the words written on paper bylong-dead statesmen. A plan which relies on treaties, or Negative arguments in support of existing treaties,

just reinforces this damaging role treaties have on foreign policy.

Can you give an example of a fully developed kritik?

Sure. What follows below is the text of a Kritik of Determinism, just as a First Negative speaker would useit in her constructive speech. Of course, the complete brief for the kritik would consist of even more materia


15/21



than this: there would be answers to all the expected Affirmative responses.

You will notice, however, that the argument as a whole doesnt ever use the word "kritik." Thats toavoid alienating any judges who have a bias against debate jargon.

Notes to the debater using the kritik are highlighted in colored text at the start of the argument. Thosecomments would not normally read aloud in a round of competition.

KRITIK OF DETERMINISM

{Note: You might find it best to present this as an "observation" at the start of 1NC. Dont label it a "kritik," sincesome judges are afraid of that word. On the other hand, if the Affirmative presses the point, admit it is one. No bigdeal.

"Causality" (kaw-ZALL-ih-tee) is the relationship of cause and effect. Dont confuse this with the word "casualty.""Determinism" is the idea that what will happen in the future is precisely and predictably a result of what hashappened in the past. A deterministic view of the world suggests that the universe acts like a clockwork, and that allfuture history is already decided. This kritik challenges that viewpoint.

Adapt this brief to the time limits you face. In addition to the A, E, and F points. you will need to present at least one

of points B, C, and D in the 1NC. The points you omit may be useful as extensions in later speeches. Of course, ifyou have time, read the entire brief.}

Observation: Deterministic causality should be rejected

A. A deterministic world-view is a hidden assumption of the Affirmative case.

Analysis: Determinism sees the universe as a clockwork mechanism of cause andeffect. By presenting arguments based on causality, the Affirmative tacitly endorsesthis world-view. The Negatives see this viewpoint as fundamentally flawed, and weare clashing with the Affirmative on the basis of this unstated assumption.

B. Deterministic causality is an unproven assumption.

Determinism is unprovenAlfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, CambridgeUniv.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 216: "Yet we mustemphasize that the principle that every event is completely determined by causes hasnot been proved, and is not clearly self-evident. We cannot even conceive a way inwhich determinism could be plausibly worked out in detail for the mind, and even iftrue of the material world, doubtful as this may be nowadays, mind and matter aresufficiently different for us to have no good grounding for concluding by analogy

that it is true of mind."

Causal reasoning is circular reasoningJohn Passmore (prof. of philosophy, Australian National Univ.) in The GreatPhilosophers, edited by Bryan Magee, 1987, p. 149: "To say that the same causesmust always have the same effects because nature is uniform is just to say, or soHume argues, that they must have the same effects because they must have the sameeffects. This gets us absolutely nowhere."

A simple sequence in time does not establish causalityBryan Magee (senior research fellow in the history of ideas, Kings College, Univ. of


16/21



London), The Great Philosophers, 1987, p. 149: "It does not save the situation to

say:We know that Event A is the cause of Event B because B always andinvariably follows A.Day always and invariably follows night, but neither is thecause of the other. Invariant conjunction, though it is all we observe, is not the samething as causal connection. It could be the case, by sheer coincidence, that everytime I cough you sneeze, but my coughs would not then be the cause of yoursneezes."

C. Conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinism.

Analysis: Determinism conflicts with the concept of free will, for if determinism is

true, then all our actionsindeed, our thoughts and motives that give rise to ouractionsare the effects of causes in the distant past. We would have no choices.Given that free will exists, determinism must be false.

Determinism and free will are mutually incompatibleAlfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, CambridgeUniv.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 207: [According todeterminists:] "Every act of mine was determined by previous causes and therefore,

it may be argued, I can never be or have never been free at any given time, because,whatever time I take, my actions then were determined by earlier ones which I couldnot alter once they had been performed."

The conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinismAlfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, CambridgeUniv.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 211: "On the one handwe have no right to expect that the common-sense conceptions of responsibility willbe exactly right; on the other, we should certainly be justified in rejectingdeterminism if it were shown to be incompatible with any tolerable system of ethics.Determinism after all cannot be proved, and we know some ethical propositions,

such as that it is wrong to ignore the interests of others, with almost as muchcertainty as we know anything."

D. Conflict with recent scientific discoveries justifies rejecting determinism.

Analysis: Last century, Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle became the cornerstoneof the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics. A simple implication of this

scienceborne out in thousands of subsequent experimentsis that on theatomic level events can and do occur without being caused, and equal causes do notnecessarily lead to equal results. More recently, the development of chaos theory andcomplexity theory have proven that it is impossible to predict events on the macro-

level, since minute difference below any possible threshold of detection will drivethe system to produce results other than predicted. Mechanistic determinism isinvalid across the scale from the smallest to the largest events.

The principles of quantum mechanics prove that determinism is falseDr. Michio Kaku (prof. of theoretical physics, City Univ. of New York GraduateCenter) and Jennifer Trainer (freelance science writer),Beyond Einstein, 1987, p.50: "The French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace took this one step further and

believed all future events (not just the return of Halleys Comet and future eclipsesof the sun, but future wars and irrational human decisions) could be calculated inadvance if the initial motion of all the atoms from the beginning of time were


17/21



known. For example, determinism in its most extreme form states that it is possibleto calculate in advance with mathematical precision which restaurant you will beeating in ten years from now, and what you will order. Moreover, according to thisview, whether we wind up in heaven or hell is determined ahead of time. There isno free will."

Same source, pp. 50-51: "According to Heisenberg, however, all of this is nonsense.Our fate is not sealed in a quantum heaven or hell. The uncertainty principle makes

it impossible to predict the precise behavior of atoms, let alone the universe.Moreover, according to the theory, in the subatomic realm, only probabilities can becalculated. Since, for example, it is impossible to know the exact position and

velocity of the electron, it is impossible to predict much about the electronsindividual behavior."

The principles of chaos theory suggests that determinism is falsePaul Davies (prof. of mathematical physics, Univ. of Adelaide, Australia) and JohnGribben (astrophysicist), The Matter Myth, 1992, p. 15: "It has been discovered thatso-called nonlinear effects can cause matter to behave in seemingly miraculous

ways, such as becomingself-organizingand developing patterns and structuresspontaneously. Chaos is a special case of this: it occurs in nonlinear systems whichbecome unstable and change in random and totally unpredictable ways. Thus the

rigid determinism of Newtons clockwork universe evaporates, to be replaced by aworld in which the future is open, in which matter escapes its lumpen limitations andacquires an element of creativity."

E. Impact: Rejection of determinism has implications for policy debate.

1. Implications for the Affirmative

Analysis:If deterministic causality is untrue, then it becomes unprovablethat the Affirmative harms will persist, regardless of any inherencyevidence presented. Likewise, it becomes unprovable that the plan willact to abate the harms, regardless of any solvency evidence presented.The ability of the Affirmative to win either of these stock issues iscontingent on the truth or falsity of the hidden assumption of determinism.

2. Implications for the Negative

Analysis: If determinism is proven untrue, the Negative must win,

because inherency and solvency evaporate. If, on the other hand,determinism is proven to be true, then causal arguments become viable,and the weight of Negative case and disadvantage arguments will be

applied against the Affirmatives net solved harms.

F. Decision rule: The status of determinism becomes a voting issue in the round.

1. This is an absolute issue.At the end of the round, determinism will need to be evaluated as either true or false,based on the preponderance of evidence introduced. There is no leeway for aweighed impact; an absolute, yes-or-no answer is required.


18/21



2. This is an a priori issue.Because the validity of inherency and solvency rests on the issue of determinism, the

judge will need to evaluate determinism first, before stock issues and substantivearguments are examined.

3. This becomes a voting issue for the Affirmative.To win, the Affirmative must have valid inherency and solvency at the end of theround. That can only be accomplished by defeating our objection to determinism.Therefore the objection itself can be thought of as a threshold position theAffirmative must pass before they are allowed to proceed further.

How does the opposing side respond to a kritik?

Well assumeas is usually the casethat the side initiating the kritik is the Negative, in the 1NC.That means the burden of responding to the kritik will be initially on the Second Affirmative speaker.

Obviously, a kritik should never be ignored. The Negative team will usually be trying the win the round

based on the kritiks decision rule, so you cannot afford to just drop the argument. If you dontunderstand what claims the opposition is making in the kritikand, very often, kritiks are initiallypresented as jumbles that simply dont make sensethen you must use some time in cross-examinationto clarify the position. Sometimes, that will even reveal that the opposing team doesnt understand theirown kritik argument.

There are four key strategic approaches in responding to a kritik. Each of them has several different tacticalarguments that can be used. The wise course generally is to use a variety of responses to kill the kritik earlyin the round.

Option 1: Reassert a comparative policy framework for the round

Kritiks often get a lot of their persuasive strength because the Negative is asserting that they do not have tomeet the same standards that they set for the Affirmative, and that there is no near for the kritik to engage in

comparative policy analysis. "The kritik doesnt have to give an alternative to the plan," the Negativessay. "Its enough that we show the plan isnt as thoroughly conceptualized as the ideal Affirmative teamwould want it."

Thats just absurd. Yes, the Negative might have a point if we were discussing philosophy in a collegeclassroom, but in a debate were locked into a competitive, comparative framework. So a key tactic willinvolve rebuilding the focus of the debate where it belongs: on the comparison of policy systems, ratherthan one-sided philosophical considerations.

Potential Affirmative responses are as follows:

Social contract.We were invited to participate in policy debate at this tournament, so we need torestrict argumentation to comparative policies which are traditional in this venue. By accepting theinvitation to debate here, we have mutually committed to deal with comparative policy issues.Policy debate is an inappropriate forum for kritiks. Kritiks are not germane to the subject matter


19/21



of policy debate. A debate is not an open forum; there is no rule which says we have to discusseverything which strikes any debater as an interesting idea. Consider: during congressional debate on

welfare reform, hoots of derision would meet a senators philosophical objection that we must firstunderstand the ultimate nature of material reality before we can undertake any policy action.Similarly, for an interscholastic debating format at the high school level, kritiks represent too abstractan argument for our consideration."Permute" the kritik into an appropriate policy position. As we have observed already, mostkritik resemble defective versions of conventional policy arguments. For example, the kritik of statism

is very similar to an anarchy counterplan (but not abandoning the existing governments of the statusquo); a democracy kritik can be considered as a disadvantage linked to democratization (just not aunique disad, because the status quo engages in democracy promotion all the time). Respond to thekritiks as arguments in the conventional form, and point out their deficiencies.

Option 2: Show the kritik is not compelling within the policy framework

Once the Affirmative shifts the debate back into a comparative policy-based mode, the next step is to show

that the kritik fails to be persuasive if viewed as policy issues. The last tactic we looked at in the previoussectionpermuting the kritikwas already a step in this direction. Other arguments that the Affirmativeteam can make are:

The kritik is fundamentally incoherent. It does not make an argument, and therefore requires no

response. Our opponents claim were doing something objectionable, but they cant seem toexpress their objections in a meaningful way. They should not be allowed to reinterpret the kritik inlater speeches: their initial presentation is so vague that they have forfeited the right to build on it.

(This claim is especially appropriate against mumbled 1NC arguments that dont seem to add up toany solid claim).The Negative advancing the kritik is fundamentally inconsistent.At the minimum, we must insis

that the Negatives advance no policy arguments which would themselves be subject to the kritik. Itmakes no sense to argue that causality does not exist and also that the plan would causedisadvantages, for instance; any Negative team trying to make both arguments in the same roundshould lose all credibility for either.The kritik is illegitimate as an argument form.Within the policy framework of debate, kritiks failto offer an alternative, and therefore they may be ignored. Policy debate is the weighing ofcontrasting policies: this gives no contrast, and so is irrelevant to the round.This kritik does not apply to thisAffirmative case. The Negative bases their kritik on exploringhidden assumptions of the Affirmative. We do not make the assumption that the kritik is trying torefute. There is no link to the kritik.The kritik leaves holes to allow an Affirmative victory.The kritik asks us to rethink our beliefsand hidden assumptions. Fine, but that still permits us to reconsider our positions while the round is

going on and decide that our initial position was right all along. "Rethinking" doesnt always meanrejecting everything which has gone before: it really just means a pause for reflection. Fine, wevereflectednow lets get on with life. (Some kritiks naturally have such additional gaps which canbe exploited as grounds for the Affirmative to bypass the kritik. For instance, the kritik of rationalityallows the Affirmative to win on purely emotional grounds, even if rationalism is considered anunreliable guideline for the ballot).The non-absolute nature of the kritik allows for an Affirmative victory. Even if the kritik is

almost certainly true, theres enough residual uncertainty for Affirmatives to win in the absence of acompeting policy argument. For instance, even if were 99% sure that materialism is a false


20/21



doctrine, that 1% chance that matter may exist still means the Affirmative plan is desirable. Thatsbecause the kritik gives no real challenge against an Affirmative policy, just a challenge to themotives underlying the policy.

Option 3: Refute the kritik on its own terms

By now, you know how to debate. Its time to put those skills to use. The arguments you will make:

The kritik is untrue. Many kritiks are postulated on controversial philosophical grounds. Useevidence and reasoning to clash with the issue.The fundamental assumption the kritik addresses is justified. Evidence and analysis, again.

Option 4: Kritik the kritik

Turn the tables back on your Negative opponents. Their action in proposing a kritik implicitly endorses thelegitimacy of kritiks. You can use that implicit argument right back at your opponents. The arguments youmight chose to make:

The kritik itself has "hidden assumptions." Those assumptions are subject to kritiking. Manykritiks rely on post-structuralist, post-modern philosophical arguments which are very controversial.This would, of course, require evidence specific to the particular kritik at hand.Kritiks lead to infinite regression.If all underlying assumptions need to be challenged, we can

never reach a meeting of minds between teamstheres always some other assumption in theway. The conventional debate round ends up in a decision one way or the other because there isalways some common ground both teams can agree on, but the Negative has establishes the principle

that every action of the Affirmativethe choice to speak in English, the choice to obey the rules ofdebateis potentially abusive.Kritiks are innately self-contradictory.The idea that "all assumptions must be questioned" is itselfan assumption which must be answered before the kritik is allowed to go forward. In other words, thefundamental hurdle which must be passed is one Negatives set up in introducing the kritik in the firstplace: they must show that their kritik is not vulnerable to the perils of hidden assumptions.Kritiks are nihilistic.If everything is subject to being questioned, then there are no grounds for

believing anything. We are left staring into the void of paralyzing skepticism. Thats not a tolerablesituation. We can reject the nihilism of kritiks on two grounds: (1) emotional groundsits just toobleak to stare into the void; and (2) pragmatic groundsparalysis stops us from getting on with life.

Reject the idea of the kritik and step away from the void.
http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htmhttp://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/IPDindex.htmhttp://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm

Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter Fourteen - The Kritik

Documents

Transcript of Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter Fourteen - The Kritik