homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:24 pm
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 Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
The simplest way to describe a post-fiat kritik is to say the affirmative is operating under a paradigm that's disproven but not yet discarded. If your doctor diagnosed your case of the flu as an imbalance in your bodily humors, and said you needed leeches and a good bleeding to restore the balance, the kritik would say that the doctor had entirely misunderstood the nature of the illness, that leeches and bleeding wouldn't help you get well, and probably would weaken you and cause the illness to strengthen in severity.

A long list of international relations kritiks exists, many of which would work for both of this year's TP topics. Several focus on deterrence, and say what we think we observe about actors' calculations, and what deters them, is hopelessly misguided, and that our resulting strategies are more likely to backfire than help. Goes that argument, our actions in containing the Soviet Union created al Qaeda, and our actions in combating al Qaeda are shaping the next force, probably multinational and skilled at cyber-attacks, that will endanger us. Because of the way we punctuate those developments, we often think we've engineered peace, when all we're observing is a gestational lull while the next threat comes to full strength.

Typical of those kritiks is an argument that you fundamentally misunderstand what you describe as a problem, your solution will solve nothing for that precise reason, and it's very likely to make matters worse.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:52 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
ZaR wrote:
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.
A DA does not have to address the same value-system as the Affirmative. Your standard for what is a "kritik" is theoretically incoherent.

What is a "kritik framework"?
A kritik's framework has nothing to do with what ethical standard you value. Here's an example of the "framework" section in a kritik (from a random backfile):
Quote:
  1. First, Fiat is illusionary. Debate is merely a constructed activity to simulate the real world. At the end of the day, whichever team you vote for, no real policy action is going to be taken.
  2. Second, Discourse shapes reality. The rhetoric we use is a representation of our views on reality. The words we say shape the way we see the world around us, and influence those around us.
  3. Third, Critical Education should be preferred. Challenging the way we approach reality has long-lasting real-life implications, and should be preferred over a constructed activity that has no real impact.
The framework IS THAT THE KRITIK IS PRE-FIAT. It establishes an alternative method of evaluating the round - i.e. the Affirmative's implicit assumptions and mindset. The "framework" has nothing to do with comparing ethical systems - that's a different part of the argument.

Do ethical frameworks define kritiks?
No. Clash over ethical values works exactly the same for both DAs and kritiks.

Let's look at a straightforward DA first: "The AFF's plan (if passed) would violate freedom of speech, which would have X, Y, and Z impacts." The Affirmative gets up and says, "yes, but we fix the economy, which is more important." All of a sudden, there's a clash of values - the entire argument is about whether freedom of speech or the economy is more important. Does the DA suddenly stop being a DA and start being a kritik? No - you just have to prove that your valuesystem is better to win the DA.

You could turn around and run a completely different pre-fiat kritik that endorsing the Affirmative's value system is bad, but that's a different argument.

Now let's look at a straightforward kritik: "The AFF implicitly assumes that capitalism is good, which is an attitude we shouldn't endorse in the real world." The Affirmative gets up and says, "oh, we totally agree, capitalism is bad, you're just misinterpreting our plan." All of a sudden, there's no clash of values - the entire argument is about whether the Affirmative links or not. Does the kritik suddenly stop being a kritik and start being a DA? No - you just have to prove that they link to win the kritik.

Again, you could turn around and run a completely different post-fiat DA that the Affirmative's plan (if passed) would appear to encourage capitalism, but that's a different argument.

My point is that, in both cases, the nature of the ethical clash does not define the argument. It's just ethical clash. You can have ethical clash with DAs; you can have ethical clash with kritiks. It's not a defining characteristic.

Is a kritik pre-fiat?
In doing so it inherently rejects the power and worth of fiat. Instead the kritik argues that ideas which will never be implemented are not as important as "real" ideas and impacts. Roger Solt (p.ii) defines a kritik as "an argument operating outside the framework of normal, comparative policy debate, attacking a (usually implicit) assumption of an opponent's analysis.".
Jennifer Davidson (Ethos article on kritiks) wrote:
In case of the Kritik, fiat is acknowledged as illusory, while words and actions and stances taken by debaters were "real" and had "real impacts" in the "real system." Instead of talking about impacts of plan, the focus of the Kritik revolves around the impacts of accepting or re-entrenching certain values or assumption, stated or implied. The debate is now about the debaters and what they think instead of the not-real game world of plan debate.
Wikipedia wrote:
Kritiks can be used to combat Fiat by the Negative team, but don't always have to focus on plan language. Some kritik literature is focused on assumptions made by the other team, such as assumptions that may be viewed as racist, imperial, capitalist, or drastically offensive in nature. These argue that the affirmative's plan no longer matters in function, or idea, as it is structurally wrong, e.g. the plan may or may not do what the affirmative says, but it is structured in a racist way, and must be rejected.
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’... The reason for this ‘pre-fiat’ status is because the kritik often is evaluating issues that the entire government plan is based on or relies on. The warrant for the claim “Improving the economy is good” is that capitalism is good. If the kritik is challenging the assumption that capitalism is good, we cannot weigh or discuss whether or not improving the economy would be good until we resolve 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.

What's a "post-fiat" kritik, then?
Post-fiat kritiks do exist, or at least, they're occasionally described. However, if you examine them closely, they're not what you're describing. "Post-fiat kritiks" take essentially two forms:

  1. Kritiks whose link concerns the outcome of the Aff plan, rather than the way they present it. The impact is still pre-fiat, however ("they're endorsing a bad solution.")
  2. Systemic, broad-scale solvency arguments based on the entire approach of the Aff plan. This is what Dr. Srader is describing above; many people disagree as to whether we should call these "kritiks" at all, but they are sometimes referred to as such.

What you're describing is a straight-up disadvantage. It's just a disadvantage that requires you to defend your ethical system to win the impact. That doesn't make it a kritik.

TL;DR Kritiks inherently concern "real-world" outcomes instead of "plan-world" outcomes. Mindset arguments set in the "plan-world" aren't kritiks, they're just disadvantages that require you to defend your ethical system to win the impact.

_________________
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 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
The Bennett article was published just five years after the first kritik was run in a policy debate, and is now sixteen years old. In the earliest days of kritik debating, debaters paid more attention to the pre-fiat dimension than the rest of it, although it was all in play from the beginning. But even Bennett's article wasn't cutting edge when it went to press: the first debater that successfully leveraged the "Your harm claim is incoherent and your solvency turns itself" was Jon Brody of the University of Texas, who rode his Foucault kritik of power, which I describe in this video, to the semifinals of the National Debate Tournament in 1995. He scarcely ever staked the round on any pre-fiat, discourse-shapes-reality claims. (In fact, you can watch him put my team out of the NDT in the octos right here, dagnabbit.)

And not to repeat myself, but that's a long time ago. All but a few of the debaters reading this weren't born when Bennett's article ran, and when kritiks were chiefly pre-fiat. Through a whole lot of kritik debating, the ability to sell both ways of winning at once has emerged as the wiser strategy, sort of like saying "Our disadvantage both outweighs the case and turns their solvency. We can win on outweighing, or we can win on turning the solvency, so the fact that we're winning both ways just puts it out of reach."


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:45 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
You are correct (as usual) that most contemporary kritiks don't explicitly state a pre-fiat framework. The contemporary technical literature on kritiks, however, still very much favors the pre-fiat framework (at least verbally), and many arguments such as language K's don't make much sense without it. I'm inclined to think that the lack of framework articulation is more a result of widespread acceptance (which renders technical debates unnecessary) than an actual redefinition of the concept - although, as you say, solvency/DA impacts are often inserted without clearly stating whether they're a separate argument or not.

My response to ZaR mainly concerns his view that, basically, "it's a kritik if it involves a clash of ethics." That definitely doesn't make sense.

_________________
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 Aug 27, 2012 3:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Fair enough on the last point. Kritiks without ethical implications are clearly winnable. Another example I used, years back, when I lectured on this at a camp: what if a huge technological breakthrough meant that intergalactic travel became possible? But then, imagine Einstein had never lived, so we planned an exploratory mission to another galaxy, but we used Newtonian physics to plot our course? Without relativity, without accounting for the ways gravity bends light, without knowing how distorted the apparent answers we plotted with our Newtonian assumptions were, we'd set out for Andromeda and wind up billions of miles off-course, too far from our destination to correct, and with no way to calculate the proper course or a way home. It would be an absolute solvency take-out, plus a net turn, because we would've squandered human and technological resources that could've been put to other, better uses. As I recall, I went from that illustration to a kritik of Columbus going affirmative on "Resolved, we should sail west to India." Because he began from a flawed understanding, India wasn't where he thought it was, and even after he utterly failed to find it, he still deceived himself that he had.

Another thing: it's just an inch or two wide of the mark to say the issue is "a priori," but it is the case that the affirmative wouldn't be able to weigh the disadvantages of intergalactic exploration against the kritik because the kritik would neutralize those advantages.

Finally, in my experience, kritiks of language can easily be post-fiat as well. Sometimes the affirmative is sporting enough to write the problematic term into the plan, but even when they don't, their speeches are the legislative history for determining the plan's intent. If you win framing arguments about how language shapes reality, then their language in their speeches shapes how regulatory agencies and courts will apply the plan. And one nice wrinkle to that argument is that it cuts against the affirmative and not the negative, so if you slip and use the same language, that impact (arguably) only goes one way.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Sounds like solvency to me... maybe I'm daft.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Nope, that's exactly the way Brody and other debaters used to explain it. But solvency takeouts very often aren't enough to win a debate in the absence of a disadvantage, whereas kritik debaters said their argument proved the entire framework was so incoherent that 2AC extensions for harm and solvency were just further evidence of the affirmative authors' stubborn commitment to hopelessly flawed thinking. You might best grasp it as a turbo-charged source indict against everyone who embraces a truly indefensible idea.

So, imagine having a family member come home from war with PTSD, and the next day Scientologists show up on your doorstep offering to clear your family member's body Thetans and help her get to OT VIII. You would rightly say that Scientology is a load of hogwash, that there's no such thing as body Thetans (no harm; in fact, your description of the harm is absurd), and that committing to Scientology is likely to make her worse for a lot of reasons, not least that it will drag her away from her faith (zero solvency, and high probability of a solvency turn). They can read all the harm extensions about body Thetans they like, and all their solvency evidence for auditing and OT levels, but if Scientology itself is nothing but a cynically dreamed-up gallimaufry of bad science fiction clichés, then you cut off their argument at the root, without having to slug it out on the line-by-line. That's how post-fiat kritiks work, most of the time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
So in my world, you make a metadebate argument or standard that says: winning solvency should win the round.

The reason it sounds like a K to people, is b/c that's a "framework" argument I guess.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:06 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
I'm still not entirely sure why we're calling this kind of argument a "kritik" when the only characteristic it shares with kritiks is that it's kind of big and philosophical.

...but, like Isaiah, maybe I'm daft.

_________________
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 Aug 27, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Another stab at the difference: the reason a lot of pre-Wright Brothers airplanes failed to fly was that they had design flaws. Fix those, and eventually you wound up with an airplane that could fly. The design flaws correspond to run-of-the-mill, recognizable stock issue solvency arguments. And if debate is set up to where a partial solvency take-out is a round winner, that's a bit silly.

On the other hand, the reason your proposed perpetual motion machine won't work is that perpetual motion machines cannot work because of the first law of thermodynamics. No perpetual motion machine can ever work, so your explanation of why yours would work is a waste of noise. The first law of thermodynamics is a kritik, not just a solvency argument.

It has little to do with being philosophical. Rather, it has to do with attacking the whole framework of thought instead of the particular claims.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:10 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
I understand that systemic solvency arguments behave differently from "run-of-the-mill" solvency arguments. I'm just not sure why it's advisable to call them "kritiks" instead of "systemic solvency arguments" (or something), when they have very little to do with kritiks.

A solvency argument is not necessarily limited (see Scientology), and a kritik is not necessarily systemic (see language kritiks.) Whether or not you call systemic solvency arguments "kritiks" doesn't have any bearing on how they're actually run, but it does blur the boundaries in a way that could be confusing to newbies. (At the very least, it confuses me, and I debated for six years!)

_________________
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 Aug 27, 2012 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Because the associated argument is that the judge, the opposing team, and perhaps most people, still cling to the old system, which is why kritik debaters typically pursue both the pre-fiat and post-fiat angles at the same time. IR kritiks, for example, set you up to say both that the affirmative is entangled with a bankrupt framework that will zero out/turn solvency and to say that a view of other nations as rivals who can be held at bay through force is a nagging holdover from our less enlightened, more barbaric views in previous generations, so voting negative to reject, to resist, is a political move. Put another way, rule by absolute monarchy proceeds from a misunderstanding of human nature and tends to backfire (post-fiat kritik), and also is best done away with through one person after another endorsing for her or himself the idea that people ought to be free from arbitrary rule (pre-fiat piecemeal endorsement).

The longer, more dense, and more academic answer has to do with the way power tries to conceal itself by normalizing itself, but that's another discussion for another time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
What is a "kritik framework"?
A kritik's framework has nothing to do with what ethical standard you value. Here's an example of the "framework" section in a kritik (from a random backfile):
Quote:
  1. First, Fiat is illusionary. Debate is merely a constructed activity to simulate the real world. At the end of the day, whichever team you vote for, no real policy action is going to be taken.
  2. Second, Discourse shapes reality. The rhetoric we use is a representation of our views on reality. The words we say shape the way we see the world around us, and influence those around us.
  3. Third, Critical Education should be preferred. Challenging the way we approach reality has long-lasting real-life implications, and should be preferred over a constructed activity that has no real impact.
The framework IS THAT THE KRITIK IS PRE-FIAT. It establishes an alternative method of evaluating the round - i.e. the Affirmative's implicit assumptions and mindset. The "framework" has nothing to do with comparing ethical systems - that's a different part of the argument.
As Dr Srader has already said, this is a great example of the framework for a pre-fiat k. I would not use it for a post-fiat k.

MSD wrote:
Do ethical frameworks define kritiks?
No. Clash over ethical values works exactly the same for both DAs and kritiks.
No, it's not the same. In the case of the first example, it's a DA because your evaluating the impacts in THIS situation. A K says, you violate freedom of speech, you should always prefer freedom of speech to economy in EVERY situation, not just this one (essentially abstracting the round to a more general debate about which should be structurally preferred, not which has the bigger impact here). This is a key reason why Ks don't need uniqueness.

In the second example, you're still arguing a K because you're debating whether the affirmatives link to the K is strong enough to justify rejection of the entire case. It's also a terrible strategy for responding to a k, even if it's based on a link of omission. Also, cap ks are post-fiat. They claim affirmative is trying to solve the world's problems with cap, which always leads to violence. They're also one of the most likely ks to have an alt that looks like a CP (except it'd be terrible as a net benefits CP)

MSD wrote:
My point is that, in both cases, the nature of the ethical clash does not define the argument. It's just ethical clash. You can have ethical clash with DAs; you can have ethical clash with kritiks. It's not a defining characteristic.
The way the argumentation develops through the round does not make it a K. A K is denoted by the way it interrogates the case compared to a DA (as Dr Srader is saying). And it must have the structure I was giving.


MSD wrote:
Post-fiat kritiks do exist, or at least, they're occasionally described. However, if you examine them closely, they're not what you're describing. "Post-fiat kritiks" take essentially two forms:

  1. Kritiks whose link concerns the outcome of the Aff plan, rather than the way they present it. The impact is still pre-fiat, however ("they're endorsing a bad solution.")
  2. Systemic, broad-scale solvency arguments based on the entire approach of the Aff plan. This is what Dr. Srader is describing above; many people disagree as to whether we should call these "kritiks" at all, but they are sometimes referred to as such.
1. The argument is post-fiat if it deals with what the affirmative is endorsing with their plan text. The impacts (should) be then talking about how whatever is being K'd drives violence/racism/etc around the world. Which is what the example I gave was doing.

2. They go much further than solvency arguments, they claim that your method of solvency is causing the problem, and will always cause it. And there's very little disagreement in most college circuits on this.

MSD wrote:
What you're describing is a straight-up disadvantage. It's just a disadvantage that requires you to defend your ethical system to win the impact. That doesn't make it a kritik.
Are you referring to my example? That's definitely a K. It questions the fundamental nature of intervening in foreign countries, and claims that the mindset this creates is a primary cause of violence in the world. Also, I did just spend an hour with my college debate team last week talking about strategies against this k, so unless the entire northwest parli circuit forgot what a k was...

MSD wrote:
My response to ZaR mainly concerns his view that, basically, "it's a kritik if it involves a clash of ethics." That definitely doesn't make sense.
Nowhere that I can see did I say it's a kritik if it has a clash of ethics. I said an argument with ethical implications and a new framework were neccessary for a kritik, but they are not sufficient. It also needs an alt. In theory you could have all of those and not really have a k, but it would just be an illogically structured argument. If you followed the implications of those requirements, you'd end up with a k.
And I was referring to ethical implications in a fairly broad sense. For instance, my example is not an inherently ethical issue (we're intervening in Syria for the wrong reasons), but it impacts to a root cause of violence, which gives the argument ethical implications. And based on what Dr Srader said, I think it's still too narrow even in that sense. Probably a bad habit because it's been so long since I saw a K that didn't impact to the root of all violence.

On later things in the thread: Correct on Ks not being a priori. A K team would use kritik arguments against a theory position, but the k proper is not enough to beat it. A bit of a generalization, as I was thinking of the fact that K will not attempt to interact directly with the advantages in the way that a DA does.

@Systemic solvency: It's different because a solvency takeout is just that, a takeout. It's defense. A K takes that a step further and says as long as we persist in this mindset/system, we not only will not solve the problem, we will keep making it worse. Only by rejection of the mindset will we be able to solve this problem, hence the alternative. And now it's offense. Dr Srader's last post is also good analysis of this.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:27 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
In the interest of not making this point-by-point any longer (and getting my lit reading done, hah) I'm just going to ask:

What specific brightline distinguishes a post-fiat kritik from solvency or DAs?

It's not enough to say "it has to attack a fundamental assumption of their mindset", because that's A) too vague to be a useful brightline, and B) not really unique to kritiks. It's also not enough to say "it has to have an alternative", because that's a purely structural element; DA's can have alternatives, too (i.e. "this plan would kill people [implied alternative: reject killing]"). You'd have to provide a separate brightline to distinguish kritik alternatives from other types of "alternatives".

(My point being that, if you cannot come up with a brightline that clearly articulates what a post-fiat kritik is, then it's not a useful distinction. "Pre-fiat" is obviously a very straightforward distinction, so it's your duty to demonstrate that adding a bunch of other types of arguments to the label "kritik" is justifiable.)

Speaking of which...
ZaR wrote:
and a new framework
...what exactly do you mean by "a new framework"? You don't seem to be referring to the literal definition (an alternate mechanism for evaluating the round, like "discourse shapes reality.")

_________________
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 Aug 27, 2012 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Functionally, for people who operate in a non-CEDA/NDT/super-technical debate environment, I think you get the following:

1. Such a thing as an argument that argues against mindset and NOT effects. This is pre-FIAT (like topicality, where topicality is a procedural with a generally assumed framework that may be argued... it is usually not assumed that mindset/language trumps the action's merits in most decisions)

2. Such a thing as solvency mitigation.

3. Such a thing as solvency takeout via structural or exclusive solvency type arguments.

Layers of complexity above that, with a general audience, seem likely semantic.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Forgive me if this is beating a dead horse, but the difference is how you answer it. If someone makes solvency arguments against your affirmative, you grab your solvency extensions and answer them. But if you answer a kritik by reading back your solvency extensions, then they just nod and say "Exactly. You, and your authors, are still stuck in that way of thinking." And if they've explained their kritik properly in the first place, that's a winning move, even if they haven't breathed a word about pre-fiat.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:14 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
But is that really different? They're pretty much just saying "our argument is more systemic than that, so your response is inadequate." That response works the same way for both kritiks and solvency arguments.

Suppose the AFF installs air-filtration devices to curb pollution from some factory. The NEG argues that the relevant pollution is actually water-borne, so this will have no effect. The AFF responds by reading cards about how the air filtration devices work. The NEG says: "Your entire approach to solving the problem is flawed, so your response is inadequate." This is exactly the same sort of response as you're describing, just on a smaller scale.

Under your view, there seems to be a clean continuum of systemicity, with "picky little solvency details" at one end and "super broad kritiks" at the other. There's no obvious cutoff in the middle where an argument suddenly goes from being solvency to being a kritik.

Therefore (I would argue), it makes little sense to think of "post-fiat kritiks" as a distinct entity. Pre-fiat kritiks, on the other hand, are a completely different type of argument, and thus deserving of a different name.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
An affirmative with even modest skills would answer that argument by saying that enough of the problem is airborne that air filters would make a difference. If the affirmative ignores the negative's argument, and the negative says "Hey, you ignored our argument," that's not attacking the affirmative's framework; just their flowing skills.

To go back to my Scientology example, if a family member comes home from war exhibiting symptoms of distress and distraction, I might say "She has PTSD" and you might say "No, she's got a concussion," but we both agree that taking a medical history, producing a diagnosis and prescribing treatment within one of several reasonably consistent domains (e.g. counseling for PTSD, physical therapy for severe concussion) will address it. You might argue, "If it's a closed head trauma, then PTSD counseling won't help," but you're not denying that PTSD exists. Both of us, however, would deny that body Thetans exist, because that entire explanation of problem and solution is ridiculous.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
And if you were in a doctor's council because this is a celebrity—so she wants 10 opinions on what to do—and one person had made the Thetans argument, what language would you use to categorize your counter argument?

I'd say it'd be in the language of "that won't work, because Thetans don't exist and there are alternate superior explanations."

As long as we can agree on that, let's all call it whatever name we want :P It's the essence of one of the types of solvency, in my mind (structural).

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Kritiks
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:36 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
DrSraderNCU wrote:
An affirmative with even modest skills would answer that argument by saying that enough of the problem is airborne that air filters would make a difference. If the affirmative ignores the negative's argument, and the negative says "Hey, you ignored our argument," that's not attacking the affirmative's framework; just their flowing skills.

To go back to my Scientology example, if a family member comes home from war exhibiting symptoms of distress and distraction, I might say "She has PTSD" and you might say "No, she's got a concussion," but we both agree that taking a medical history, producing a diagnosis and prescribing treatment within one of several reasonably consistent domains (e.g. counseling for PTSD, physical therapy for severe concussion) will address it. You might argue, "If it's a closed head trauma, then PTSD counseling won't help," but you're not denying that PTSD exists. Both of us, however, would deny that body Thetans exist, because that entire explanation of problem and solution is ridiculous.
But attacking the entire concept of Thetans is just further along on the systemicity continuum. Where does "specific solution" stop and "entire mindset" begin? It doesn't - it just gradually transitions.

NANO-SYSTEMIC: The technology in the filters doesn't work.
MICRO-SYSTEMIC: The filters won't be installed correctly due to workforce problems.
SYSTEMIC: The filters are attacking the wrong kind of pollution.
MEGA-SYSTEMIC: Attacking pollution at all is useless, containment just incentivizes more pollution.
ULTRA-SYSTEMIC: Technology is fundamentally destructive, we must Become One With Nature.
LUDICROUSLY SYSTEMIC: Reality doesn't exist, proposing solutions at all just discourages us from realizing that and being Enlightened.

At what point does this go from being a solvency argument to being a kritik? (Bearing in mind that, whatever step you pick, I can come up with an intermediary step that is even trickier to distinguish. :P )

(P.S. For ZaR, note that all of these options on the continuum have implied alternatives - ranging from "don't do that, then" to "stop believing reality exists.")

_________________
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
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous 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