Critiques
Richard Duff
post a message about some generic critiques? Thanks.
Dakota Duff
scatt...@sunflowermall.com
HeLLaPrEp7
>Can someone send me some website addresses for Debate critiques or just
>post a message about some generic critiques? Thanks.
>
There's no such thing as a generic kritik really...There are some that link to
everything (like the use of language) but they're not generic by any means. I'm
gonna post a bit about kritiks here...but I'd like to say two things before I
do:
First, kritiks are typically meant to attack the fundamental assumptions of the
affirmative. If your kritik doesn't attack the fundamental assumptions of an
affirmative...then don't assume that because you spell kritik with a capital K
you're going to win the round. Winning the link is as important, if not more
important than in any other form of debate.
Second, don't be an idiot. Kritiks are nice and all, but they're often VERY
complex. To run Spanos' argument without having read Spanos in context or to
run a kritik of Realism while never having read Morgenthau is really a stupid
thing to do, because you'll look like a dumbass, and give a bad name to people
who run these positions because they either a) Really believe in them or b)
Know what they're doing in rounds.
That said...here're some kritiks.
The first major category of kritiks on this topic are kritiks of international
relations theory. Typically, the title of the kritik is the concept that the
authors of the kritik indict. For example, a kritik of realism says realism is
bad...Here's some of the kritiks, with their theses.
Realism-
The philosophy used to fight the cold war, Realism, is bad. It assumes that
nation states are the primary actors on the world stage and they act in terms
of interest defined as power. They want nothing but power, and their actions in
the international political stage are motivated by a quest for power. Morals,
culture, and intentions really don't play much of a role. Realism says we
evaluate the facts, and interpret them as they are...This is bad for a few
reasons. First, we automatically assume everybody is hostile. Second, we never
really relax. Since we're the most powerful country around, it makes sense that
we should subjugate the world and conquer all them weak folks. Additionally,
like I said earlier, realism encourages us to disregard morals...that can be
bad, 'cuz we might commit genocide. There are millions of other reasons why
realism is bad, but these should give you a good taste...it causes war and
other amoral shiznit. So the kritik says reject the realist plan and rethink
our theory. One major weakness is that the kritik authors often don't offer an
alternate theory to replace realism.
Moralism-
The opposite of realism. It says acting solely on morals is bad, because it
leads us to get our asses kicked, and is also counterproductive, because morals
are inherently subjective, so we might be doing bad when we think we're doing
good. Furthermore, moralism tends to disregard consequences, and that can be
bad. I don't understand this kritik fully, but that's what I've managed to
figure out from what I've seen. The alternative is to be more realist, I would
suppose...
Libertarianism-
This is a kritik where the name of it is actually what the kritik supports.
Libertarianism advocates minimal government intervention in order to allow the
free market to take the reins of international relations. Authors for this
kritik include such lovely characters as Ayn Rand....I don't really understand
much past what I've already articulated, but the kritik links to any case
claiming economy advantages or acting on the global economy.
Clash of Civilizations-
A kritik mainly authored by one Samuel Huntington. It says that international
relations is not ruled by realism, sheer chaos, or any other such nonsense, but
rather by groups acting in the interest of their own culture. For example,
Islamic nations uniting together to reject western imperialism and what they
perceive to be the rape of their own cultural and religious heritages. It says
the driving force behind the actions of nation states is the preservation and
expansion of culture. The plan fails to acknowledge that, and is therefore
doomed to fail. So reject it and embrace a new paradigm.
Feminism-
A buncha crazy girls, headed by a woman named Tickner, have pointed out that
women are excluded from discussions of international relations. International
politics has essentially become a "war against women," or so they say. This
kritik is really a kritik of realism, with the thesis being that realism is
somehow a woman-hating philosophy (which can be proven fairly well). The cards
are very good, and there's definitely an argument to be made.
Those are all the kritiks concerning international relations theory that
immediately come to mind. Some other kritiks on the topic include...
Spanos-
A kritik that I really don't understand. Spanos is an english professor that
read Heidegger, a german philosopher, and applied Heidegger's problem solution
dichotomy to the Vietnam war. People running the kritik somehow attempt to
argue that Russia is like Vietnam, and any intervention there, especially
through the use of technology, is another way to justify imperialist genocide
and domination over others. So you reject the plan...and that somehow solves
everything. *that's the part I really don't get*
Threat Construction-
The Cold War is over. But the assumptions of the affirmative plan don't reflect
that. It looks at a nonthreatening nation, possibly Russia, maybe Finland,
China, Peru, you name it, and constructs them as a threat by doing something
mean to them. They respond in kind, and then we'd obviously respond back.
Before you know it, you have a cycle of aggression based on maltreatment of
some mofos. The kritik can also be applied to non-nation states, such as
terrorist groups, religions, or individuals. It says that we must deconstruct
the threats that have been created, and be all peaceful...
Shunning-
The kritik says we need to be moral in our actions and disregard consequences.
It says the best way to be moral is to not associate ourselves with evil. So we
should shun russia, and not talk to them, 'cuz they're evil commie bastards who
support human rights abuse and invasions of Chechnya. The kritik says that we
can shun other nations, and that'll encourage them to reform. It's pretty much
the same rationale as is used to justify revoking China's MFN status.
There are other kritiks which aren't specific to the topic, I'll name 'em, but
won't try much to exlpain 'em...you can mail me if you have questions. Or I'm
sure somebody else would love to fill you in...These are:
Normativity
Shadowboxing (Similar to Normativity)
Statism
Marxism/Socialism
Critical Legal Studies
Critical Race Theory
And a whole pile of others that people might dig out of their back files.
Robert ASF.
On 11 Oct 1998, HeLLaPrEp7 wrote:
> >Can someone send me some website addresses for Debate critiques or just
> >post a message about some generic critiques? Thanks.
>
> There's no such thing as a generic kritik really...There are some that link to
> everything (like the use of language) but they're not generic by any means. I'm
> gonna post a bit about kritiks here...but I'd like to say two things before I
> do:
snip for band width but excellent all the way!
Just Thought I Should Mention It
Gordoholic
kritiks!!!! Not saying the second person's post didn't do an excellent job of
summarizing the more common positions this year, because in all honesty they
did a great job. . . .
HOWEVER. . . . and this commentary is sponsored by the words "Threat
Construction". . . just because a rhetorical theory sounds all nice and neat
and easy to use doesn't mean it's appropriate for debate rounds of competition.
I'm not about to say that Kritiks are illegitimate(sp) forms of arguing so
hear me out before replying
A couple of weekends ago I was judging a tournament and heard Threat
Construction run not once but twice (btw, it won the Champ division and later
I'll explain why) and it was run by the AFF, not the Neg. . . .
ok, I'll let the readers catch their breathe and stop yelling obscenities. .
for a minute. . . feel better yet? . . . . good, as I was saying the AFF ran
the 4 cards from Macke in the beginning of the 2AC.
AFF claimed that the neg must be rejected because they ran "Disadvantages that
focus our attention to threats that don't really exist except in theory, and to
focus an educational discussion on nonreal threats will actually create
threats. . .therefore Macke says that in an EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSE (please note
emphasis) the judge must reject their mode of thought, therefore vote Aff
because we don't focus on the DAs."
.. . there was more on the idea that Fiat was illusionary (never gonna happen
so plan and disads never gonna happen either. . . )
Anybody else care to guess where I'm going to go with this one? here's the
line-by-line:
1. 1AC gives me 5 scenarios of bad things that will happen without plan, ,
hence focusing on threats, hence contradicting the Macke cards.
(could go into more detail. . but why?)
2. When has Russia NOT been considered a threat of some sort by ANY author
in the west? been a long time I'm sure. . . and the 1AC authors are no
different. Punish the aff for being the first team to introduce authors
claiming Russia as a possible threat (here you could get creative. . )
3. Macke assumes that when he refers to an EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSE, that the
lines of communication would be two-way, between the educator (judge) and the
students (debators). Competitive debate doesn't work that way. The only time
ANY kind of discourse occurs on that level is after the round, and by then it's
too late to consider Macke.
4. Even if you don't buy my 3, consider the AFF position; Macke claims that
the educational discourse is the most important, and that this must be
considered and voted upon before any kind of in-round arguments. . . .but when
does this 'magic discourse begin' ? as soon as the 1AC begins. . which is
where the first threats are constructed (five scenarios worth) and the
'fiat-that-really-never-happens' intruduced. That gives you two more reasons
to reject the AFF based upon their own Kritik. . . . . . . . . ... .
So, not only should you not run a Kritik until you understand what the theory
applies to . . . but I cannot imagine one that you can use as AFF, because the
only reason the NEG would violate is to respond to arguments and mindsets
established by the AFF.
SnazzyGirl
>theory
>applies to . . . but I cannot imagine one that you can use as AFF, because
>the
>only reason the NEG would violate is to respond to arguments and mindsets
>established by the AFF.
>
understand kritiks shouldn't run them, fine. But I think dismissing the
ability of the aff. to kritik is ridiculous. Granted it seems like you saw a
round where the affs didn't have their act together but that is not the norm.
As someone who runs a kritik affirmative I think that I'm really taking some
sort of advocacy. Plenty of times the Negs make their own assumptions when
they run disads that the aff. does not set up. It is just as valid to point
out why that assumpion is flawed and thus the disad means nothing as to point
out that you link turn it. I guess I don't see the distinction.
Sure, silly people will do things like run threat construction and go on to
make a performative contradiction or to already have made it. . . thats
unfortunate and it gives a bad name to those of us who legitimately run kritiks
but, don't dismiss all aff. kritiks so easily. . .
Elyn
Nicolet
Gordoholic
did presume a bit much in my previous post so I digress. . . .
By the way I forgot to explain how this kritik won the champ final round (of
which I was a judge, go figure, along with two debaters from Emporia State U.)
The Neg (for some stupid reason) completely drops the kritik in the Neg block,
never even bothered saying so much as "the kritik is stupid'. So the Aff gets
up in the 1AR and again in the 2AR and says "all I'm going for is the
Underview (kritik), drop all 1AC arguments."
Since the NEG had nothing against this arg and they had already claimed it A
Priori voting, it was a 3-0 ballot for the AFF.