homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:06 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:18 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1375
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
From what I understand of them, kritiks are arguments that strike at the philosophy of the affirmative/negative team. I’ve never seen one run in a TP debate before (interestingly enough, one was ran against me in LD. I’ve seen kritiks in Parli also.), but they sound like interesting arguments. I’ve heard that k’s are pre-fiat arguments, which I am a little fuzzy as to the exact impact of a pre-fiat argument. What are your thoughts on k’s?

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
They're interesting arguments because they challenge the entire mindset of the AFF team and argue that since the mindset is wrong, we shouldn't even consider the plan. However, in practice, they tend to be poorly run, insignificant, detracting from more meaty arguments. If run well, they are common sense no-brainers. Most of the time however, they are "cool" gimmicks.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
could somebody more knowledgeable than i post an example of a "good" kritik contrasted with a "bad" kritik?

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:01 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
kingwill wrote:
could somebody more knowledgeable than i post an example of a "good" kritik contrasted with a "bad" kritik?
An obviously legitimate kritik:

AFF: "Yes, our plan would deny emergency-room access to the Inuit. So?"
NEG: "That's racist."

A kritik that could work well if you ran it right:

AFF: "Plank 2 of our plan establishes a monetary estimate for the value of a human life, to aid in cost/benefit calculations..."
NEG: "Putting a numerical value on human life fosters a dangerous mindset that leads to impacts A, B, and C."

A kritik that is just plain silly: (this sounds completely ridiculous, but I have actually seen arguments like this in other leagues)

AFF: "We're going to require this new technology on coal power plants."
NEG: "Requiring technology is ultimately a patriarchal action, reject all patriarchal actions inherently because they are tied to the historical suppression of women."

I think kritiks are legit conceptually, but to what degree a given kritik is legit depends on what it is. However, just because a kritik is legit doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to run it. I wrote an article on this topic awhile back.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Jon Bruschke of the Debate Bible has the best explanation of Kritiks. He has the entire book online.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I'm no expert on Kritiks, but at least have run and defeated and lost to several dozens.

First Kritik I ran intentionally was Education year. We K'ed the language of the other team that was all about getting more people to and through school so that they are more successful and the further in education they go, the more successful they are. The language and cards they were using basically defined a human's "success" as how well educated they are. We argued plenty of people are "successful" and no less valuable despite less education, etc etc. It worked in this case because the AFF basically bit the K worse in their responses by saying "education DOES determine how successful you are at life!"

Most frustrating Kritik I have lost to was NPDA parli nationals against a Texas Tech team running their standard argument (though we didn't know it was their standard argument at the time): capitalism K. Our case had to do with the 9-11 Conspiracy. OPP never debated it really, but just ran this super long K on how if you don't use every forum available (e.g. debate rounds) to indict Capitalism, it's bad because Capitalism is the worse worse thing ever. Our judge loved this (and thought 9-11 was a religious event caused by the world's religious leaders who wanted human consciousness focused on a single thing... he gave me an anarchist rap CD at the end of the round).

Here's a really weird thought, though, that has occasionally brought me fruit on the college circuits: to many in the hard core "net benefits" paradigm, solvency doesn't win debate rounds unless it's a 100% takeout of a plan. As in, if there is SOME advantage you do it, even if most of the plan is ridiculous. If you want to win solvency in this paradigm, you can make it into a pre-FIAT voter to do so. Weird, but can work. Example: vague mandates can be run as a K that AFF plans must meet a certain standard of specificity. You could also run this as a DA with the "potential consequences" of course, but as solvency it may not work under the paradigm.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
My stab at explaining the basics of kritikery. I started to write it out as a forum post, then realized it would be way too long and a confusing read. As is, I talked for twenty-five minutes and barely scratched the surface.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:25 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
DrSraderNCU wrote:
^^^ watch this. That is all.

Also, I vote for the general adoption of the word "kritikery". :lol:

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
One good way to deepen your knowledge of kritiks is to read through a fully researched one. There are zillions of such files floating around in this or that backfile project, but the problem is that most of them are impenetrable academic goo. However, I did find this one, which was surprisingly straightforward and readable. It's also potentially applicable to the Stoa topic, and probably useful whatever the NCFCA topic turns out to be. Of course, your biggest obstacle will probably still be the expectations of your judging pool, but as a learning exercise, having a look at this file couldn't hurt.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Isaiah wrote:
Here's a really weird thought, though, that has occasionally brought me fruit on the college circuits: to many in the hard core "net benefits" paradigm, solvency doesn't win debate rounds unless it's a 100% takeout of a plan. As in, if there is SOME advantage you do it, even if most of the plan is ridiculous. If you want to win solvency in this paradigm, you can make it into a pre-FIAT voter to do so. Weird, but can work. Example: vague mandates can be run as a K that AFF plans must meet a certain standard of specificity. You could also run this as a DA with the "potential consequences" of course, but as solvency it may not work under the paradigm.

If I may be forgiven for getting slightly off-topic...
As someone from the "hard-core" net benefits paradigm, which is actually the dominant paradigm in NFA and, I believe, NPT/CEDA, let me clarify this. Such an argument, that vague plan text (or something similar) is a solvency takeout, is not a critique. It is a procedural. It is structured like topicality--interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. No Solvency is one of the standards, along with stuff like Ground, Shifting Target, all that. It is indeed pre-fiat, but not a K. Solvency proper is fine, and the net benefits paradigm is fine with voting neg on terminal defense (especially if its dropped). Normal mitigation is good, too, since you can weigh that back against DAs.

Anyways, as far as Ks go in the net benefits paradigm, they need a well-articulated framework telling me why I should evaluate it, instead of net benefits. Other than that, if you have a college debate judge who does NFA, CEDA, or anything like that, Ks are awesome :D

I can't really do better than Isaiah's description of Ks (although I would probably have a wider def of "good" Ks), so I won't repeat what he said. Just wanted to clarify the difference between procedurals and Ks...

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Valid

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:27 pm
Posts: 13
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: That place in the back of your mind telling you not to do that stupid yet fun sounding experiment.
(REVIVING THREAD)
The only real thing that hasn't been touched upon too much here are post fiat Kritiks, or mindset arguments on the plans effects, not on something said by the team. These are real world arguments, rather than debate world arguments.The (good) Kritiks to be run are on effects of the plan, such as plan causes slavery. The Kritik would have to have a framework, and a good one, showing why slavery is worse than any other possible situation. This would be, in this case, something like slavery is worse than death because of dehumanization. This type of kritik isn't based on the affirmative team, but rather on their plan. Also, post fiat ks require logic and so are much better for the round anyway. This type of argument not only makes for incredibly fun rounds, it also introduces another real world argument into the round. I hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding / premature hatred of Kritiks!

_________________
-Rachel Donka


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:02 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
rmdonka wrote:
These are real world arguments, rather than debate world arguments.
I think you meant that the other way around: these are arguments that take place in our created "debate world" where the plan is actually passed, as opposed to arguments that take place in the "real world" where we're standing at lecterns debating.

In practice the line between post-fiat "kritiks" and straight disadvantages is kind of blurry. If you're arguing that the Aff plan creates slavery, that's basically just a disadvantage:

Link: Plan causes slavery.
Impact: Slavery is morally wrong.

...which isn't really different from:

Link: Plan crashes the economy.
Impact: People suffer unnecessarily.
[IMPLIED IMPACT: Making people suffer unnecessarily is morally wrong.]

IMHO, phrasing it as a "kritik" just confuses things.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
that's the definition of a DA

Something the plan causes that is bad.

Is the plan disadvantageous as a result of your argument? Yes? Disadvantage.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
It is true, however, that some disadvantages of this type have true kritik impacts as well. "This plan causes slavery, which is bad... and also you should vote this team down for promoting it..." In this case, it's more like an argument with two separate impacts (plan-world and real-world) than a singular "kritik".

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
MSD wrote:
It is true, however, that some disadvantages of this type have true kritik impacts as well. "This plan causes slavery, which is bad... and also you should vote this team down for promoting it..." In this case, it's more like an argument with two separate impacts (plan-world and real-world) than a singular "kritik".


That is very muddled, but you can run both at once... as long as you distinguish plan impacts from kritical impacts.

Thought 1: The plan causes slavery, which is WRONG. Link: Plan. Disadvantage. Vote neg because the impacts of the plan are worse than the advantages/status quo. This is a policy decision, weighing pros and cons.

Thought 2: AFF advocates slavery, which is WRONG. Link: Advocacy/Language used in favor of the plan. Vote neg because we don't accept people promoting slavery in debate. This is not a policy decision.

1 is DA, 2 is Kritik. You can call it something else if you want, but distinguishing the two types of decisions is essence.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
It's a kritik if you run a framework that ethical issues/whatever should be most important. Impacts that the mindset/advocacy of the plan can lead to terrible things (this specific instance may not though, that is irrelevant). Then an alternative of what to do in response to this problem. The fundamental difference from a DA is that a DA weighs itself against the affirmatives framework/criteria, a k creates it's own, and the k endorses an alternative action (and thus needs solvency)

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:34 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
ZaR wrote:
It's a kritik if you run a framework that ethical issues/whatever should be most important... The fundamental difference from a DA is that a DA weighs itself against the affirmatives framework/criteria, a k creates it's own
Erm... no. All disadvantages AND kritiks ultimately impact to ethics, and you can ALWAYS fight about whose ethical framework to use. You can't distinguish a kritik from a DA that way.

The key difference between a kritik and a disadvantage is pre-fiat vs. post-fiat. DAs are post-fiat; they argue that the outcome of passing the plan is bad. Kritiks are pre-fiat; they argue that the outcome of running the plan (regardless of whether it's passed or not) is bad.

Example: Arguing that "the plan would foster the devaluation of life if it was passed" is post-fiat, so it's a DA. Arguing that "the Affirmative team is themselves fostering the devaluation of life by running their plan" is pre-fiat, so it's a kritik. (You can conceivably argue both pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts at the same time, but that just means you're running two different impacts, not that the post-fiat impact magically becomes a kritik.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
ZaR wrote:
It's a kritik if you run a framework that ethical issues/whatever should be most important... The fundamental difference from a DA is that a DA weighs itself against the affirmatives framework/criteria, a k creates it's own
Erm... no. All disadvantages AND kritiks ultimately impact to ethics, and you can ALWAYS fight about whose ethical framework to use. You can't distinguish a kritik from a DA that way.

The key difference between a kritik and a disadvantage is pre-fiat vs. post-fiat. DAs are post-fiat; they argue that the outcome of passing the plan is bad. Kritiks are pre-fiat; they argue that the outcome of running the plan (regardless of whether it's passed or not) is bad.

Example: Arguing that "the plan would foster the devaluation of life if it was passed" is post-fiat, so it's a DA. Arguing that "the Affirmative team is themselves fostering the devaluation of life by running their plan" is pre-fiat, so it's a kritik. (You can conceivably argue both pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts at the same time, but that just means you're running two different impacts, not that the post-fiat impact magically becomes a kritik.)
A kritik HAS to supply a new framework. It does not operate in a net benefits world, but puts itself as a priori. A DA argues that the same type of things the affirmative has already said are important (number of deaths, economy, environment) are made worse by the plan. If aff ran a specific criteria, obviously you have to respond to it, but no affirmative would question that people dying is bad. The same would not be true for an argument that capitalism is bad, so anything that endorses it is bad. Also, you dropped the end of that sentence. What you quoted is not sufficient for a k, it also needs the alternative.

No, pre/post fiat is not the distinction. Having a framework and an alt is the distinction. Ks can be post-fiat. In your example, if I ran framework that value of life is the most important issue, with impacts that loss of value of life leads to endorsing slavery and presented an alternative of rejecting aff, I'd have a K. It's not a DA because I'm not weighing against your case. If I win framework, I probably win the round. Losing framework means that I probably lose because there's no way to weigh the K under the aff framework. A DA says something is bad, impacts that, and then the impacts are weighed.

Another aspect is that the K does not need uniqueness. A K generates non-linear impacts without uniqueness, because it argues that the issue should be valued first, regardless of whether there is already a problem.

A clearer example of a post-fiat kritik is that a plan to intervene in Syria fosters a mindset of Western superiority. This is obviously a k, but it's also post-fiat (the mindset is not of the people in the room, it's of large populations). A capitalism k is another example.

Basically, pre vs post-fiat will determine the type of framework in a k, but pretty much any argument with the structure I outlined is a K (if it doesn't have moral or ethical implications, it probably won't win as a k, but creating a framework based on a single issue and having an alternative to solve it means you should treat it as a k)

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
ZaR-- would you mind giving me an example of a post-fiat kritik? I'm skeptical that it's not a disadvantage. I could say outright that a "kritik is pre-fiat, disadvantages are post-fiat," but it just nomenclature. Why do you believe we should include certain post-fiat disadvantages in the category of the kritik?

Final question: do disads not have an implicit framework and alternative?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited