7/28/2019 kritiks

1/4

The Kritik

Kritik: noun In the philosophical context, kritik (or critique) refers to thetheorists associated with the Frankfurt School, in coalition with the Institute ofSocial Research in Germany. Each of these philosophers shared Karl Marxstheory of historical materialism. This theory holds that communism will inevitablyreplace capitalism as the economic system of choice. In debate, kritiks oftencounter capitalism, and may also be used more broadly to describe anyquestioning of basic assumptions.

There are three foundations to the kritik:

1. A paradigm is being critiqued. A paradigm is a fancy word for a specificworld view or set of assumptions. Some examples include capitalism,socialism, libertarianism.

2. The kritik should literally function as a disad in the round.

3. The kritik often functions in the round as a gateway to a discussion of fiatand its implications. Can we really discuss the effects of a policy if we aremisinterpreting the very paradigm its based upon?

The Basic Breakdown:

Aff team operates within Paradigm X

Paradigm X is bad

Therefore, AP is bad

Paradigm Y is a better model

Types of Kritiks

7/28/2019 kritiks

2/4

1. Speech Act Kritik: Focuses on utterances or rhetoric used in the debateround. Some examples include sexist and racist language, but alsoextend to asinine arguments like genocide good.

2. Rule Based Kritik: The general argument serves as a new framework for

weighing stocks in the round. A rule is created and established, such asutilitarianism is good, and then the arguments on solvency andadvantages must be met under that rule.

3. Ethics Kritik: The ethics K is based on the framework of debate theoryand abuse. These arguments are made every round, and are often notrun as a full kritik. These are arguments such as: presenting a new DA inthe 2 presents an unfair time skew in the debate round. The teamrunning this argument is contending that their opponents have broken anexplicit or implicit rule to debating.

4. Implicit Assumptions Kritik: These arguments function as noted above.

For instance, the government endorses capitalism, capitalism is bad, sothe government plan is bad.

5. Resolutional Kritik: This is a variation of the speech-act kritik, whichexamines not the language of the debaters, but rather the discourse of theresolution.

FRAMEWORK

The kritik is a priori, which means it is an argument that must be

adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round.

Another characterization of this is the term pre-fiat. This just meansthat the fiat is a discussion that takes place before we even get totalking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat).These types of arguments present a gateway for the rest of thedebate. The reason for this pre-fiat status is because the kritikoften is evaluating issues that the entire government plan is basedon or relies on. The warrant for the claim Improving the economy isgood is that capitalism is good. If the kritik is challenging theassumption that capitalism is good, we cannot weigh or discusswhether or not improving the economy would be good until weresolve the debate about capitalism.

Another reason that kritiks are pre-fiat is that it is the only real

thing that happens in a debate round. Think of the PMC as aperformance, a rehearsed presentation by an actor given to anaudience. This performance is real, it is tangible, it can berecorded, recounted and shared. Now think about what we aretalking about in the performance. Does the world change when theplan is passed? Is there a magic word that makes anything we talk

7/28/2019 kritiks

3/4

about in a debate round become real? If plan texts were woodenboys, they would not become real. That means if a kritik actuallytalks about what was SAID, not what is hypothesized, then we arediscussing a real event. The government team actually endorsedcapitalism out loud. This really happened. The government team

actually DID use sexist language. Kritiks often target things whichare explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We shouldtalk about what really happened before we talk about what mighthappen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might getimplemented.

Winning the framework debate is the key to ensuring that your kritik

will compete with the governments plan. It is also good to havespecific arguments in the framework debate as to why the specificargument you are talking about might be more important than theaffirmatives case. For instance, if you are kritiking sexist or racist

language, you might say that because debate is a communicativeand public event we have an obligation to the event to ensuredebates moral and ethical stability. It is crucial to the educationalvalue of debate to make sure that it has a moral and ethical center.In essence, the framework debate is about convincing the judgethat she or he should evaluate the kritik first in the debate roundbefore any other question is resolved, and that if the kritik must becompared to the plan, that the kritik will outweigh.

Example Implicit Assumptions Kritik: A Feminist Kritik ofInternational Relations

*** When developing your own Kritik for class, please use the sameframework as provided in the below example. You must, however,also include TAGS and SOURCE CITATION. ***

Premise: The government team uses foreign policy actions to achievegoals and generate advantages. Foreign policy is inherently patriarchaland exclusive of women and feminist ideals. Patriarchy is the cause ofinternational competition and provides the impetus towards violent conflict.Only when we couch action in feminist rhetoric and support feminist goalscan we achieve a productive and sustainable world free of conflict and

destruction.

Link: Feminist author, Juliet McCannell wrote about how the rhetoric ofcold war foreign policy in the 1950s subverted women to explicit roles ashomemakers. She wrote that cold war rhetoric imprisoned women in thehome, shackling them to children and the kitchen and away from placeswhere policy decisions are discussed and made. The government team isengaging in a war-frightened foreign policy discourse that returns us to

7/28/2019 kritiks

4/4

this cold war mindset we have yet to recover from as a society.

Link: Policies aimed at stopping future conflicts dont work. The conflictsalways happen in some form, regardless of specific policy actions. Thegovernment plan engages in this hollow hope of stopping international

conflicts.

Impact: Patriarchal foreign policy rhetoric ignores the needs and safety ofwomen, leading to abuse, denial of rights and rape of women. Warrhetoric puts civilian women and children at risk as collateral damage inconflicts that is deemed acceptable in the government teamsharms/advantage scenario as an unfortunate side effect of conflict.

Impact: Foreign policy rhetoric leads to power dialogue. Specific powerdialogues include power over rhetoric that creates competition in theinternational arena. The goal of foreign policy is to subvert and control

international bodies, subjecting them to the rule of the dominant actor, inthis case the actor in plan. Power over discourse leads to oppression andcontrol and the denial of self-determination.

Alternative: We must discuss gender when we talk about foreign policyactions. How will the policy protect women and children? How will thepolicy include the feminist perspective in the implementation of the policy?The alternative is to endorse a framework where gender becomes centralto any discussion of international relations.

Alternative: Reject plans that claim to stop inevitable wars while doing

nothing to stop institutionalized violence against women and children.Domestic violence, rape, and discrimination are all violent acts that we canactually solve and make a dent in, especially since our discussions anddeconstruction in this room will influence ourselves and the community tofocus on these forms of structural violence. Your plan will not stop a war.Nothing will happen after this round. However, written endorsements bythe critic will shape the community and provide a written record of why weshould stop domestic violence first, before hypothesizing aboutinternational events that will continue unabated despite our discussions.