Taming the Kritik: How to Beat a Kritik Debater in LD Today Ill explain how to engage in kritik debate and

some useful strategies to beat back the dreaded K. Always keep in mind that the best way to beat kritiks on a consistent basis is by running them yourself. For many people kritik is a bad word. A no-no in most polite debate circles, kritiks have been called everything from philosophical mumbo-jumbo to really bad debate. Despite what you may have heard, kritiks are none of those bad things people have told you they are. In reality, a kritik is no different than your typical DA-Counterplan debate-save for the in depth philosophical discussion. NFA-LD Rules clearly stipulate that kritiks are unacceptable, but no one seem to care. The official decision-making paradigm of NFA LD is that of Stock Issues: Harm (Advantage or Goals), Inherency, and SolvencyThe negative may attack any of these issues, but need only win one to win the debate. The negative may also challenge the jurisdiction (topicality) of the affirmative proposal or argue that disadvantages to the proposal outweigh its benefits. The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need for further study (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION). http://www.nationalforensics.org/lincoln-douglasdebate/ld-rules The problem with kritiks, for both coaches and competitors, is that a kritik represent the great unknown in both LD & Parli Debate. Most coaches never had to engage in kritik debate at the level that they have become common today, if they even engaged Ks at all. Furthermore, individuals that embrace both kritik debate, and the philosophical ideas that fuel them are few and far between. So, knowledge on the subject of kritiks is usually only explored in summer workshops, and post tournament parties with other schools/teams. This means that a good deal of coaches, critics and competitors dont have the knowledge base to evaluate kritiks fairly. As such, the answer for many folks on both the two and four year circuit is rejection and demonization. This disconnect also speaks to a larger problem emerging in the debate community. Kritiks have become a luxury item, apparently exclusive to certain schools and debaters. This gives these debaters a leg up in competition because they are able to use an argument that a majority of the folks they compete against are not prepared to respond to adequately. In my opinion, this removes equity from debate rounds. Two issues in specific have made the learning curve for kritks quite steep.

1. Most kritik debates are rooted in post-modern theory. Post modernism is usually studied as a part of upper division or post graduate philosophy classes. For the non-philosophy major trying to grasp the ideas in K debate is extremely difficult initially. This is an even bigger problem for people with little to no foundation in philosophy. 2. Kritik debate is usually reserved for the most experienced teams on the circuit. This is not by accident. Kritiks are difficult to understand, tricky to construct, and a pain to articulate. The teams that run them are usually tough competition on a straight up interpretation of the resolution. With an obscure kritik they become unbeatable. Usually, the kritik teams are always deep in the out rounds at the biggest tournaments. 3. Kritik debate is designed to challenge our world view, and/or way of thinking. That their world view/way of thinking is wrong, is not something most people are ready to acknowledge or embrace. As such, kritiks usually trigger cognitive bias in those who are the subject of the kritik, and in some cases this cognitive bias can extend to the judge. The bottom line is that a kritik is just another argument against your case, and like any other argument made against you its possible to beat the argument if you have the right responses. Below well explain Kritiks and a few easy ways to beat them back. WHAT IS A KRITIK? If you didnt already figure it out, a kritik argues that the methodology you use to frame your worldview and build your affirmative case is problematic. The argument occurs pre-fiat which is critical to the way the judge votes on the kritik. If you lose the following arguments, you lose the debate. 1. There is a problem with my ontology/ethics/mindset 2. This ontology/ethics/mindset has some really nasty implications 3. We have a way to fix your ontology/ethics/mindset 4. Words are real Fiat is not. Therefore, our pre fiat implications should come before case because they are the only real world implications. HOW TO BEAT A KRITIK: Most of the apprehension to kritik debate comes from this section. Most debaters, especially in LD Debate, dont have the tools required to respond accurately to Cap Bad, or Fem IR, or Orientalism, etc. When I was in my last year of debate I both ran kritiks (Fascismo or chismo) and routinely beat them when they were run against me. Here is my in round strategy.

1. Know your judge: If you dont have access to a judge philosophy booklet before the round its acceptable to ask for a judge philosophy in round. THERE IS A GOOD REASON THIS IS #1. Your critic is the most important person in the round. You can short circuit kritik debates before the round gets started by asking this simple question How do you feel about kritiks? If your critic says they are open to all arguments or they love kritiks then follow the steps below. If your judge hates kritiks, and your opponent runs one anyway, you should already know what to do. 2. Pre-empt the kritik in the 1AC: This is a clever way to give yourself some offense against the kritic in the 1AC (frontloading), and more often than not it will go overlooked or under-covered in the 1NC. In Contention One, or Observation One, just after you read the resolution and give the definitions and type of debate (policy, fact, value) and evaluative criteria, throw in the Textual Advocacy is preferable to Sub-textual Advocacy argument. Textual advocacy is everything written in the 1AC. If the negative responds to your 1AC line by line text they are engaged in textual advocacy. If the negative responds to pre-fiat considerations then they are engaging in sub textual advocacy by engaging in argumentation that is outside the text of the 1AC. An example of this construction is below a. Observation (Contention) One: Resolution Analysis i. Definitions ii. Case: Policy iii. Criteria: Net Benefits iv. Textual Advocacy is preferable to sub-textual advocacy for a few reasons 1. Textual advocacy is the most predictable form of advocacy in this round because it is derived from the text of the resolution. Both teams are able to read the text of the resolution and have a good idea where the debate is headed. If the affirmative were to interpret the text of the resolution in a sub-textual way the negative would be skewed out of the round, as would the affirmative. 2. Textual advocacy decreases the amount of judge intervention in round by limiting the evaluation of the round to the textual arguments alone. Sub-textual arguments ask the judge to accept that portions of debate either do not exist or should be considered illegitimate. Judge intervention is bad because it destroys the activity

by creating unpredictable rounds that discourage participation in the activity. Lack of participation equals the end of debate. 3. Rules Good Blocks: At the core of kritik debate, especially in LD, is a complete disregard for the rules of the activity. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as debaters consider themselves critical thinkers, and challenging normative forms of debate by debating everything, including the rules, demonstrates growth in the activity. Still, rules are rules and we have them for a reason. Defaulting to a block on why rules are good (w/impacts) and why breaking rules is bad (w/impacts) can go a long way to making your opponent uncomfortable in round. PLUS ITS A GREAT STRATEGY TO FORCE THEM TO ALLOCATE TIME. Spend no more than a minute on your rules good block, and force them to respond. If there is no offense on the rules block you can kick out (dont go for it) of the argument in the 2NR. 4. Go after the alternative: Once you get to kritik go to the alternative first. A kritik means nothing without a viable alternative text. Why? Well, without an alternative you have a non-unique linear DA that we have no mechanism to solve for, so why penalize me when the problem will continue to exist regardless of what we do in round. The Alternative is essentially a counterplan to the kritik. As such, like any counterplan it has to solve for the implications of the kritik. This is your first chance to put offense on the K. a. Alternative Vagueness on every K, no matter what. One of the funny things about philosophers is their confusing use of language and jargon. Often times this language bleeds into the alternative during the K debate. No matter how specific the alternative is you can find a word, or series of words, that can be described as vague. Embrace the Other or Add fem voices to the IR stage are both examples of alternative texts that can lead to good alt vagueness debates. There is a good amount of literature on policy failures due to confusion about the policys intent. Use it to your advantage. b. Turn the assertions in the alternative. As a counterplan the alternative is open to similar arguments you would run on a counterplan. If they remove all government structures run a tribalism turn and say tribalism will become rampant as people organize along the lines of race. No government = Small Arms Warfare & Small Arms Warfare, according to the UN, is usually the most violent form of warfare. Alt creates more death and destruction. You can turn almost any alt because they usually advocate sweeping changes is societal structures, which have historically ended badly (Chile, Cambodia)

5. Turn and/or mitigate the Implications. In a kritik, the implications are the impacts of the position. So when you turn the implications of the kritik you are saying these are good things. This has to be done carefully, because you dont want to turn everything they say. A good example would be child labor. If you have implications of child labor bad, you dont want to say child labor good because it makes you sound heartless, even if you have a good argument. A smart way to divide your arguments would be on three levels. Arguments you can turn (military bad, cap bad, etc) Arguments you can mitigate (outbreak of war, nuclear war, famine, etc) and arguments you can claim plan solves for (child labor, racism, anthropocentrism). These arguments have to be answered and there is a good combination of offense and mitigation to make the round competitive. 6. Answer the hidden arguments in the Framework (frontloading). THIS IS WHAT MAKES KRITIKS CONFUSING AND DEADLY. Basically, Frontloading is the practice of answering the 1AR in the Framework and implications of the 1NC. Confused? Im not surprised. This confused the heck out of me until I started running Ks. Basically, the best kritik debaters will take all of the traditional arguments used against a kritik and place a pre-empt to that argument somewhere in the framework or implications (sometimes they can be slipped into the link and alternative, so stay alert. Ill give you an example of frontloading from the kritik I ran my senior year, Fascismo. All of the preempts from the framework are in bold. These are the arguments that one had to answer to beat this kritik. Needless to say, we won a lot of rounds running this kritik because no one could answer the frontloaded arguments well, or they would ignore them altogether. a. Framework: i. The Fascist Authoritarian Nationalist Political Movement exist in the United States 1. The Fascismo is a revolutionary trans class form of antiliberal and anti conservative nationalism. It is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity. It is highly adaptable to sociopolitical context and can consume a variety of movements and forms that exist inside of its framework. 2. The Fascismo draw from a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents. The Fascismo do not care about left or right, conservative or democrat. The Fascismo only care about articulating itself as a body of ideas, slogan and doctrine.

3. During the inter-war period of the 20th century the Fascismo were manifested as an elite-led armed party that promised to end the threat of international socialism, end national degeneration as a result of liberalism. 4. In the continuing post war period of the late 20th and early 21st century the Fascismo have become military corporatist. They argue in favor of a strong proletarian nation, but not the creation of a proletarian class. The Fascismo argue that they favor all, business and worker alike, and that they can protect the upper-class bourgeoisie from the petite bourgeoisie, and they can protect both from the proletariat. In America this Fascismo is manifested in the populist appeals to the middle class to protect small business and individuals from communism by pledging an economy based on competition and profits, but at the same time stating to oppose big business through taxes and regulations. 5. The Fascismo seek to create a single party state with a government led by a dictator that pledges to maintain national unity and development by forcing individuals to subordinate self interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. The Fascismo seek to permanently forbid the freedom of speech, and criticism. The Fascismo also forbid the quest for equality amongst individuals and military pacifism because all are deemed threats to national unity because they dispute any normative national identity. ii. The Fascismo can only dominate in a world where individuals are willing to support its actions through the use of their agency within the system. It is the initial action that entrenches the mechanisms and power of the state, and it is what the Fascismo need to claim that they are the vehicle through which ends are achieved. 1. The K can be weighed against case because the K exists in a world where the authoritarian nationalist Fascismo political movement is not inevitable because agency can be used contrary to the state or separate from it.

2. The K has both pre and post fiat implications because it not only questions the policies you choose to enact through the state, but also questions the methodology you use pre-fiat to frame you world view. We believe that bad methodology breeds bad policy, and you must first have the correct methodology in order to implement effective policies. iii. We must beat back the regime at all costs. Political Justice and freedom can never exist under the coercive structure of the state. The Fascismo will always place the corporate state before the individual through acts of dominance and coercion. 1. Each act of resistance is one of existential survival where we seek to save ourselves against the Fascismo movement. Each moment of resistance has the potential to deny the movement individuals for consumption, and works its way towards building a critical rupture. The above framework is filled with a lot of techno babble. This was done to deliberately cloud the issue, or more specifically, confuse the affirmative as to which arguments were really important. As you see from the above bolded arguments, there are six (6) framework arguments that have to be answered in order to with the debate. The most important argument in the framework is the very last argument. This argument gives uniqueness to both the criticism and alternative by pointing out the ability to revers our present course. The argument above that is a hidden voting calculus. In this the judge is instructed to consider any act of fighting the regime preferable to any act of entrenching its mechanisms of power. This is an example of bot a winning kritik and what you have to be conscious of. The only way to know what to look for is by running a kritik that uses these same techniques. When all is said and done you should have at least 1:30 for on case arguments. A good rule to live by is spending as much time on case as you opponent did. So time them and write it down on your flow. You shouldnt use less time covering an argument than your opponent, unless you believe you can beat back the argument in less time than that. THE WEAPONS YOU NEED FOR BATTLE. Kritiks tend to revolve around the same philosophical areas. Once you get comfortable with philosophy as a subject youll notice that there arent that many

different Ks. No matter how dressed up they are with a cool name they tend to revolve around the same issues (Economics, Politics, Sociology, and Defense). A good K debater can provide good/bad answers for all relevant philosophical issues used in kritik debate. This, like everything else in debate, takes some research to do well. If youre serious about dominating Ks if theyre run against you the list below is your study guide. If you know who these people are, and you can argue for or against their most important ideas in a reasoned manner you will find yourself accepted amongst the net-benefits crowd and your popularity on the circuit will greatly increase if you say Zizek is nuts and actually know what youre talking about. Common Kritik Philosophers: (not an exhaustive list, just what Im familiar with) Theodor Adorno Dialectic of Enlightenment (See Horkheimer) Giorgio Agamben Whatever Singularity & Homo Sacer Alain Badiou Being and Event Jean Baudrillard Everything (Simulacrum is Great! Matrix K) Gilles Deluze Everything Jaques Derrida Everything Stephen Dubner - Freakonomics Daniel Faber Eco Pragmatism Patrick Geddes Global Local (Think Globally, Act Locally) Jurgen Habermas Public Sphere G.W.F. Hegel Everything (Dialectic) Martin Heidegger Everything Max Horkheimer Dialectic of Enlightenment (See Adorno) Bell Hooks Everything (Feminism & Critical Race Theory) Felix Guattari Everything

Jacques Lacan Everything Emmanuel Levinas Everything Steven Levitt - Freakonomics Kurt Mandelbaum Everything Johann Most Anarchism (Propaganda of the Deed) Freidrick Nietzche Everything Richard Rorty Pragmatism Jean Paul Sartre Absurdism Edward Said Everything (Orientalism!) Slavoj Zizek Everything Fareed Zakaria The Post American World

Common Kritik Topics: (not an exhaustive list, just what Im familiar with) Anthropocentrism Biopower Borders (sovereignty) Capitalism Coercion (power) Crisis Politics (Theatre of the Oppressed) Deep Ecology De-Schooling Development Eco (Psychology, Governance, Pragmatism, Feminism) Empire (Cap Bad)

Feminism (Fem IR) Freakonomics Essentialism Gendered Language Gifting (Foreign Aid) Global-Local (globo-loco) Hegemony Immigration Irony Mimesis (mimetics) Normativity Nuclearism Ontology Orientalism Queer Theory Race Theory (Critical Race Theory) Radical Ecology Realism Science (Dialectic of Enlightenment) Threat Construction/Terror Talk