Kritik Theory
I wanted to explain what I believe about Kritiks, and hopefully start a discussion that will lead to some understanding about this realm of debate theory. Why now? This last weekend at the California Double-Up some of my students (the ones who don’t also do CEDA) ran into their first kritiks.
So, what is a kritik? Well, that all depends on who you ask and in what round you see one. I’ll give my take on what a kritik is, and then share on kritik strategy.
A kritik is a negative argument against a fundament premise of the affirmative case. All arguments are built on assumptions. Not only is that appropriate, argumentation theorists usually suggest that we start from common assumptions that don’t need to be independently articulated (Aristotle called them “enthymemes”) and work from there. A kritik is an attack on one of these fundamental presuppositions of the affirmative team.
An example is a plan that Cal Baptist ran last weekend, that the U.S. should help solve for Malaria in Africa by 1) sponsoring the spraying of DDT 2) Subsidizing bed nets and Malaria drugs. A fundamental premise of the case is that saving lives is a good idea. The CBU debaters didn’t feel the need to put evidence in the case that saving lives is actually good. The negative argued that due to overpopulation in the world, the plan would end up killing all of us by allowing more to survive now. Other common Kritiks along these lines are arguments that using a state to solve, or using the elements of capitalism dooms the world.
So, what’s the problem with these strategies? The problem normally is that negative debaters try to argue that Kritiks function as other kinds of negative positions, without actually fulfilling the burdens of those other positions. For example, many kritiks offer negative impacts of running the plan, much like a disadvantage. Of course, disadvantages have to prove uniqueness and if some sort of threshold is asserted, the negative must prove some brink at which the impacts will occur. Often kritiks are non-unique and have no brink analysis. Sometimes kritiks offer an alternative to the status quo. In this way, they function the same way as a counterplan. But counterplans have to be competitive and net beneficial, which means that the kritik has so solve for the same problem the plan introduces, and most kritiks don’t. Sometimes kritiks function as solvency attacks, suggesting that ingoring some basic assumption of the plan prevents the plan from gaining full solvency. Those kinds of kritiks aren’t procedural-level voters (meaning that they would have impact on the ballot regardless of the plan).
What I saw an awful lot was kritiks run as a nebulous argument, and then shifting based on the affirmative strategy in the round. If the aff says the kritik is non-unique, then the neg claims that the kritik is a kind of counterplan. If the kritik is argued the be untenable as a counterplan, the neg argues that the kritik proves a kind of disadvantage.
Here’s what I would suggest. First, point out that (at least in my opinion) non-unique system-level kritiks are illegal in NFA L/D. See my earlier post on procedurals. Second, if you are on the aff clarify intent in cross-ex. Ask, “Are you advocating the status quo, or the alternantive you clarify in the kritik?”. Or ask, “Is this a disadvantage to my plan, or an attack on my solvency?” Watch for shifts. If they argue that the kritik has “pre-fiat” implications, meaning that the negative is seeking to alter the discourse of the people in the physical round, or that discourse changes alone solve the problems on case, point out that NDA L/D rules require the judge to use a stock issues, policy-maker paradigm. Again see my earlier post about Rules Violations as procedurals.
I don’t believe kritiks are good debate theory, and I have never (going on 7 years of judging now) voted on one. This is because I have never seen one that makes sense given the requirements I have laid out above. I am, however, in the minority and will enjoy reading any comments to this post.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
I debated policy for a year and a half, then ended up switching to LD. I’ve only been debating for two years now, but I love both forms of debate and also think that the kritik is fantastic. Right now I’m working on a kritik that can be used against social contract theory. As a debater of the southeastern Idaho area I see a massive abuse of this theory; it mutates to the point where it can advocate any stance under any resolution. For instance, with the felons’ right to vote topic, my opponents frequently claimed that under the social contract (treated as an actual historical document rather than a philosophical theory) felons relinquished basic civil rights when they committed crimes. It doesn’t follow the actual theory at all and is extremely abusive.
I would simply be criticizing the assumptions made by the person running social contract as their value. The link would be that their version of social contract differs from the versions of Rousseau, Locke, and (can’t remember the other guy’s name). The impacts would be only in round- that the use of this altered form of social contract is abusive: the equivalent of giving someone a chance to hit an invisible foe in the dark. The alternative would be to reject the value of my opponent.
So my question is, under these circumstances, would a kritik still be bad debate theory?
Thanks, and I would greatly appreciate your input. 
While I like the title of Boyer’s AT Marse I will start this beaten horse over here…
I know that there have been similar conversations to this in the past but what do ‘you’ feel the place of kritiks are in LD?
The rules are generally agreed to say that K’s are bad, mkay, but after reading and rereading and then deconstructing the rules it seems to me that this may not be quite as true as I have previously believed.
A K should either turn case, outweigh case, or punish the opposing team for something they have done in my opinion. This follows in line with what the rules say about ‘stock issues’.
Why would you vote for a team that screams racial profanities at his opponent? I understand this is a massive mis-characterization of your position however I believe that it is possible to see in round.
Also, what is traditional? K’s have been around for a long time now. Why are they not a part of the tradition of debate? If policy is what we use as a measure of tradition (since it is what most people default to as the historic beginning of debate) then the K should be allowed.
As you yourself have pointed out, the ballot says the better debating was done by ____. Therefore, if vagueness should be punished so should morally reprehensible positions, as defined by the K/debate.
Finally, as to alternatives should be competitive… the K is what makes the alternative competitive and they are not always topical or you can find ways to make the alternative work.
I think what we have seen is just a lot of bad debates with shitty K’s, both of which make me a sad panda.
I would offer the following questions to any willing to answer, since I recognize that most people who read this are infinitely more qualified to answer then myself.
Let’s say I was running Bio-power, since this is something I wouldn’t actually run.
I say that increased government control of transit is bad and that it leads to a totalitarian state where the government is going to 1984 our asses, blah blah blah.
Any reduction of government controlled bio-power is a stepping stone towards contained empowerment and allows us to overcome oppression and reach nirvana.
~2 different alts I would like to discuss~
1) the alternative is rejection of aff
or
2) the alternative is the self doing plan (grassroots) without government involvement.
Both are non topical since the topic says usfg for most of the topics. I feel that the phrase ‘specifically identified as a key issue’ says it is ok to run ppl vs states vs usfg since it does say that the USFG should do it. The resolution becomes a question of whether or not the usfg should undertake an action. All DA’s will be linked to the agent/action thus there is cause of questioning the actor.
This has been long, disorganized, and everything a kritik should not be. Therefore, I am open to other’s opinions. ESPECIALLY those who usually don’t comment!
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I too agree with Mike that I think the current rules make kritical/critique arguments unavailable to the debaters. The very first line of the NFA-LD rules are enough for me:
“NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on traditional stock issues.”
Would anyone argue that kritiks/critiques are the traditional stock issues of policy debate? We were looking to develop a position to argue in rounds much like the rules violations Mike posted earlier.
However, I also agree that as a judge I would not automatically dismiss the position. I think it’s up for the affirmative to articulate WHY kritiks are not allowed. I, like Mike, however, rarely vote on Kritiks/critiques as I almost always feel as a judge the debaters leave so much unexplained. Critical arguments are tremendously complex, and I think it’s really hard to explain it in only a few minutes.