Kritiks in Debate
Plain and simple: Justin Eckstein’s take on the K. (The first part)
While many people have heard of the K, not many people know the origin. Well, just for those base ball card debaters the first K ever, a Feminism K, was run in 1989 by Ryan Goodman a debater from UT. Also the word Kritik (critique in english) is originated from the Frankfurt school of thought.
Structure of a K
For a K there needs to be a link, impact, and alternative. So the structure of the K would look like this
Subpoint A — Link to the topic, resolution or language
This is where you tell the judge your opponent did something that you feel you must object too. There are two kinds of links. The first is the obvious link, they did somthing, like negative language and thus link to the K. The other kind of link is a link of omission. This link basically says “by not doing/talking about X you link into the k”
Subpoint B—Internal Link
Depending on your K you will need an internal link, if this was a langue K you would need a link saying that language construct reality, or if it’s a methodology k how this methodology would lead to an impact. Think of this as a bridge between your impact and your link.
Subpoint C –Impact
Showing how voting for the other leads to bad things, there are a couple different types of impacts,
1. A huge terminal impact, an example is that X mindset will allow genocide to occur, or war will occur etc.
2. The alternative will be able to change reality, make the world less racist etc
3. The methodology is problematic which will only re-entrench the current problem or new problems.
Subpoint D—Alternative
Simply saying there is a problem is not sufficient to win the round. You need to prove how embracing your conception of the world is better.
Also, I would suggest some framework cards. This would show why we should evaluate the round in a kritikal framework as opposed to your opponents.
There are 2 types of Kritiks
The first kind of kritik is the Discourse K. The discourse K occurs when your opponent uses racist, sexist, harms society, or in general oppressive language. This kind of kritik is predicated on the assumption that language transcends the debate round. The way you make this warrant is by explaining that reality is created through discourse. There are a plethora of different authors who agree with this assumption (such as Ronald Bleiker). I can think of three different kinds of internal links in a discourse K. First, there are the basic communicative theory links. Second, there is scientific reasoning; this warrant would say that this oppressive language has historically lead to harm. I don’t know how many of y’all debated the hate speech topic, this kind of warrant can be found in Matsuda’s arguments that racist speech leads to post-dramatic stress disorder etc. Third, you argue that a universal application of the negative language would lead to negative implications such as a perpetual dehumanization of the other. I am sure there are many other internal links but those are the three that come to mind when I think of the discourse K. Some examples of discourse K’s would be Rights talk, terror talk, and a fem gendered language K.
The second kind of kritik is the Methodology k. The methodology k examines the values in the way the case is constructed. The methodology K examines the ontology of a case and points out the flaws in different corollaries; these flaws can include stereotypes, or if the ontological warrant embraces bad values (such as gender oppression). An example of this kind of kritik is Edward Said’s Orientalism. Or, you could argue their case is liner and marginalizes peripheral voices because it ignores a certain cultures narrative. So this kind of kritik can be used to K the resolution in general or the specific way your opponent constructs their case by exploiting certain assumptions.
Below is a copy of the ordering world Kritik I ran this year. It’ll show you the structure of how the K ought be. (keep in mind this is a policy K so there would have to be some changes i.e. rhetoric in a LD K)
A)The globalization mindset is predicated on indicting the present system. This hierarchical privileging orders world, closing alternative spaces.
Nayar 99, Jayan , professor of law U of Warwick, “Re-Framing International Law For The 21st Century: Orders Of Inhumanity.” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Fall 99 LN
The mutuality of “professional” sensibilities between the “criticized” and
the “critic” brings with it a considerable degree of closure. Primary among the
consequences of this familiarity and, therefore, similarity between the
“professional” location of both, is that emancipatory imagination is contained
within the same aspirational “languages” that are commonly understood. Through
this closure of language and, therefore, imagination, emancipation itself
becomes absorbed into an enclosed conceptual space for articulation. The
standpoint of the same rhetorical devices of civilizational projections become
the tools for entitlement claims. Put differently, what we might see as
direction for emancipation is itself “ordered” by our own conceptual frameworks
that we derive from ourselves as subjects and objects of ordering.
B)
The affirmative creates a futuristic landscape of reality post plan. This privileging is just another form of benign imperialism. ‘
Nayar 99, Jayan , professor of law U of Warwick, “Re-Framing International Law For The 21st Century: Orders Of Inhumanity.” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Fall 99 LN
Thus, a “globalized” world-order has come to fit snugly within the common
parlance of these “global citizens” (politicians, lawyers, corporate actors,
professional NGOists, academics), and world-order possibilities have infused
their imaginations. The struggle ahead, from such vantage points, lies in
determining what the image of order might be, what the structures of a global
order might look like. The rush to capture the symbolic and futuristic landscape
of world-order provides us with the rich exhortations of “new beginnings,” open
to the intellectual expertise of both “right” and “left” politico-economic
orientations. These range from the “ordering” inclinations of U.S. State
officials asserting the right of “benign imperialism,” n9 to the
“reordering” demands of progressive internationalists calling for “humane
governance” n10 and “neighborhood” perspectives. n11
Regardless of political and ideological orientations, the underlying message of
the rhetoric of world-order, however conceptualized, is one of increased human
welfare, freed now [*605] from the ideological constraints of an outdated,
geo-politically based state system. A new order for these exciting times is the
order of the day.
Setting aside these divergent articulations of the vision of world-order, let
us locate the rhetoric of world-order within the realm of social experience. The
point of our concern is not simply about “world-order-talk,” after all, but
rather, about the real or potential impacts of world-orders, real or imagined. I
suggest we begin this exploration into an alternative narrative on world-order
by stepping off the bandwagon of world-order narratives to reflect on the
connotations of its very terminology.
C)
Thus affirming justifies the assimilation of culture and the genocide of the “other”
Nayar 99, Jayan , professor of law U of Warwick, “Re-Framing International Law For The 21st Century: Orders Of Inhumanity.” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Fall 99 LN
Despite the vision of world-order founded on a notion of a universal society
of humankind aspiring toward a universal common good, (first given meaning
within a conceptual political-legal framework through the birth of the so-called
“Westphalian” state system n14 ), the materialities of “ordering” were
of a different complexion altogether. Contrary to the disembodied rhetoric of
world-order as bloodless evolution, the new images of the world and languages of
“globality” did not evolve out of a sense of “hospitality” n15 to the
“other,” the “stranger.” Rather, the history of the creation of the
post-Westphalian “world” as one world, can be seen to be most intimately
connected with the rise of an expansionist and colonizing world-view and
practice. Voyages of “discovery” provided the necessary reconnaissance to image
this “new world.” Bit by bit, piece by piece, the jigsaw of the globe was
completed. With the advance of the “discoverer,” the “colonizer,” the “invader,”
the “new” territories were given meaning within the hermeneutic construct that
was the new “world.”
[*607] The significance of this evolution of the world does not, however,
lie merely in its acquiring meaning. It is not simply the “idea” of the world
that was brought to prominence through acts of colonization. The construction of
the “stage” of the world has also occurred, albeit amid the performance of a
violent drama upon it. The idea of a single world in need of order was followed
by a succession of chained and brutalized bodies of the “other.” The embodied
world that has been in creation from the “colonial” times to the present could
not, and does not, accommodate plurality. The very idea of “one world” contains
the necessary impetus for the absorption, assimilation, if not destruction, of
existing worlds and the genocide of existing socialities. This violence of
“order-ing” within the historical epoch of colonialism is now plainly visible.
Through “colonialism” was reshaped the material basis of exchange that
determined human relationships. Put differently, the very idea of what is
“human” was recast by the imposed value-systems of the “civilizing” process
that was colonialism. To be human, to live, and to relate to others, thus, both
lost and gained meaning. Lost were many pre-colonial and indigenous conceptions
of human dignity, of subsistence, production, consumption, wealth and poverty.
Gained was the advent of the human “self” as an objective “economic” agent and,
with it, the universals of commodification as the basis for human relations.
D)
Rather then fixating on the sparkly futuristic advantages, we ask the critic to use the ballot to reject the affirmatives prescribed worlds. You as a critic are asked
1. recognize the local over the global, reattach yourself to where you are now in this world
2. Use your ballot as a tool against the struggle of ordering worlds and thus genocide
Nayar 99, Jayan , professor of law U of Warwick, “Re-Framing International Law For The 21st Century: Orders Of Inhumanity.” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Fall 99 LN
Despite the fixation of the beneficiaries of ordered worlds, even the ordered
“critic,” with the prescribed languages, visions and possibilities of human
socialities, other realities of humanity nevertheless persist. Notwithstanding
the globalization of social concern and the transnationalization of
professionalized critique and reformatory action, struggles against violence
remain energized, persistent and located. They are waged through the bodies of
lives lived in experiential locations against real instruments of terror,
functioning within embodied sites of violence. Non-information and
non-representation of the existence of such struggles, and non-learning of the
wisdoms thus generated do not negate their truths or the vibrancy of their
socialities. n51
“We” are participants in ordered worlds, not merely observers. The choice is
whether we wish to recognize our own locations of ordered violence and
participate in the struggle to resist their orderings, or whether we wish merely
to observe violence in far-off worlds in order that our interventionary
participation “out there” never destabilizes the ground upon which we stand. I
suggest that we betray the spirit of transformatory struggle, despite all our
expressions of support and even actions of professionalized expertise, if our
own locations, within which are ordered and from which we ourselves order,
remain unscrutinized.
Tune in next time when I go over how to beat the k.
Popularity: 4%
test
Posted from: 12.125.168.42
May 24th, 2004 08:16
question: What does this mean?
The globalization mindset is predicated on indicting the present system. This hierarchical privileging orders world, closing alternative spaces.
Posted from: 130.253.138.90
May 24th, 2004 09:03
That was a the big stick link we would make the an aff plan. All aff’s in some way delt with globalization and thus the construction of their case is predicated on an assumption that globalization is good, so we K’ed that methodology
Posted from: 65.240.30.35
May 24th, 2004 11:10
I don’t think you answered Bietz’s question.
What does “The globalization mindset is predicated on indicting the present system. This hierarchical privileging orders world, closing alternative spaces” mean?
Posted from: 130.253.116.36
May 24th, 2004 12:12
Well, that specific tag means that the rationalization of globalization is based on the idea that the current global structure we have now is not good. So, you are privileging the new idea over the current world, which ignores the current world.
If you want to learn about the kritik buy the Nov/Dec 03 VBs if you want to see my explination of the K. I spend a good 12 pages explaining the kritik. The point of me putting that K there is for others to see the structure of how a K ought be. It is just missing standard anaylsis you would need to add in LD.
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 24th, 2004 12:23
goddamnit justin! stop posting k’s that we run!
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 24th, 2004 12:23
stop posting under my name navot
Posted from: 24.6.169.125
May 24th, 2004 19:21
riiiiiiiiite prashant. -_-
Posted from: 68.121.216.244
May 24th, 2004 22:45
Ok. prashant stop being ugly and posting under my name.
Posted from: 68.11.42.154
May 25th, 2004 10:08
interesting e-mail adress, navot
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 25th, 2004 10:10
…you all need to die.
Posted from: 130.253.138.90
May 25th, 2004 10:56
Pershant, Navot…lets remeber to act older than our shoe sizes
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 25th, 2004 12:12
Leave me out of this. Its the first time I’m actually posting on this whackstatus thread. -_-
Posted from: 24.214.120.134
May 25th, 2004 12:15
i have to disagree with (comment on?) justin’s article on a couple levels, which i’ll try to keep brief, since we all know that about 90% of people (myself included) dont really bother to read long posts. JE (or anyone else for that matter) you know to IM me if you wanna talk about this stuff more. [mmangus846 on aim]
first (and maybe im misunderstanding this point) i dont see the necessity of a specific alternative if the impact of a kritik is “the affirmative framework is invalid.” i know that this is probably gonna start a big series of “rejection theory sucks” replies, but it seems to me that, with the appropriate theory arguments, it would be sufficient for a neg debater to argue that the basis for the affirmative is wrong/bad/not “ontologically parsimonious” (to borrow from my favourite k ever) and thus worthy of rejection even without an offensive alternative.
second (and this more of a comment than a disagreement), i think the statement “The methodology K examines the ontology of a case and points out the flaws in different corollaries; these flaws can include stereotypes, or if the ontological warrant embraces bad values (such as gender oppression).” is unnecessarily confusing.
even though i think i understand what justin is trying to say and think that his definition is accurate, that sentence reminds me of how many times ive seen words (like “ontology”) used in a way that is just plain confusing. my only advice (and advice i am probably not qualified to give, but will offer for what its worth anyway) is that, in my (limited) experience, kritiks that dont use very many philosophical buzz-words are much more successful in rounds than arguments about (as i alluded to earlier), “ontological parsimony” or the inevitable imp/explosion of the sun (word to WGLF fans). again, im not trying to insult justin, just pointing out something to think about when writing/running Ks.
PS: brugato accidentally bled on my copy of the ordering worlds k at emory. it was hot/symbolic.
PPS: i dont mean to get off-track, but with some really ballsy K debaters graduating this year, does anyone else think there may be a brief decline in kritik debates on the circuit?
still deciding if i am a work of art or a body without organs,
JMM
Posted from: 130.253.138.90
May 25th, 2004 13:18
1) I understand the explaination about ontologies was a little confusing, however i think thats the best way i can explain it. But in other words: you examine the frameworks basic premsies and point out why its flawed. An example would be if their argument was 2 + 2 = 4 you would argue that 2 and 2 dont always make up 4, rather its just a memorized fact premised on current power structres. I hope that makes a little more sense.
2)You invoke an intersting question with the alternative. I am going to be really quick and simple and if you have anymore questions and would like an indepth dissucison please IM me (Fakeplant420) and we shall talk. It seems the only question that arises is about the meth k, so ill talk about that. Basically you have to understand that 1) rejection is an alternative 2) some kind of alternative is needed other wise you start getting into voting on persumption theory. This is because all you’re doing is pointing out is the arugment is bad and not suggesting what to do about it, thus it beggs the question if you say the other persons argument is bad does that prove that you autonmaitcally win? Why should i vote for you because they used the word “development” or they construction of their cases embraces a certain mindset? 3) with out an alternative the K can be used unfairly to usurp ground. At any one point a K debater can say “this K also solves this part of the case, and this part of the case etc” creating a moving target. The alternative provides a textaul restraint on their argument
If that is confusing i appoligize i am typing this before a class…IM me with questions
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 25th, 2004 13:26
Nontextual Alt Bad Theory is fun.
Posted from: 69.34.23.183
May 25th, 2004 15:27
Two things:
1. You can give perfectly justifiable reasons to negate based on a K sans alternative. For example, no solvency arguments, or simply that a case is invalid. Or making a burden argument related to the K–like the Schreiber kids did when running their deconstructionism K.
2. I’d venture to say that most judges just give presumption to the negative [unless theory arguments are made to prescribe a different burden scheme]. I think this is the standard practice, at least as far as I’ve witnessed.
Posted from: 24.46.121.154
May 25th, 2004 16:30
While I think it depends on the particular kritik, I agree with Mike and Greg that kritiks need not present an alternative in order to be valid. If the argument put forth by the kritik is that the question is biased or the affirmative framework is faulty, and that such a fact alone is reason to negate, I don’t see why an alternative is necessary. (We didn’t have an alternative in our cultural relativism kritik, and I’ve seen other kritiks presented without an alternative at the bottom.)
Of course, if rejection itself is an alternative, then I guess that part of the presented formula is satisfied. I think, then, that many kritiks could rest on that alternative alone.
Posted from: 66.1.153.136
May 25th, 2004 16:57
a k of ontology without an alternative is silly. if you cant escape a certain ontology, then the negative links into the k as well. an alternative doesnt = solvency, it just means an alternative framework with which to do things. if, in jons words, the affirmative “framework is faulty,” but there’s no other framework to use, then the k isn’t valid.
Posted from: 24.214.120.134
May 25th, 2004 17:44
i think preshant overlooks that, frequently, post-modern/post-structuralist/etc. criticisms arent seeking an alternative. i dont understand why, in such cases, a debater couldnt just embrace an ironic framework rather than provide an alternative. that means, essentially, the argument would boil down to:
“Aff takes X system (be it a system of ethics, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, or whatever) for granted. That system is flawed (for reason Y), but we cant really think of a way to escape it (since either we have been raised to presuppose its validity or the nature of the system makes it impossible to evaluate from an objective/transcendental standpoint or whatever). However, its still really silly to presume that system to be valid. Even without an alternative, resisting that system is better than being complicit with it, because it allows us to search out new alternatives (remember those pesky concept reifications make us think things are impossible when really we just havent tried hard enough). With that system rendered invalid, the 1AC offense goes away, and (because of theory argument Z, probably presumption or something) that means you vote neg.”
or you could just read Schlag or Newman or something like that (using the master’s tools to tear down the master’s house, placing a ladder on one plateau to reach a new one, inverting language, contradiction only problematic in western thought, whatever)…but i think that would sort of go against my earlier advice not to make arguments with loaded, complex (read: silly) philosophical rhetoric
Still trapped by the deadlock of desire, but planning on traversing the fantasy sometime next week,
-JMM
Posted from: 130.253.138.90
May 25th, 2004 17:51
Look i have too disagree with you guys. If you dont have an alternative the K would be similar too saying “there is sexism.” Ok, so there is sexism how do we fix it? That’s what the alternative’s function is. Also, if there is no alternative the K can morph in alot of abusive ways, so a alt provides a check on the k becoming a moving target.
Greg-Just because it is done doesnt ness make it right. If you follow your logic a neg can just make so many different positions and arguments that would clog the round up and then the judge would have to default neg. There is no reason the default should be either side either, i think you would have to justfy just voting neg. Dont tell me because aff speaks first and last is a good reason to default neg. The neg has a huge time advantage, infact in my experence negs won more rounds than affs.
Posted from: 130.253.138.90
May 25th, 2004 17:53
Oh ya one other thing, if you could default neg all the time it would allow the neg to just run the same exact aff case, or a different aff case and the judge would vote neg.
Posted from: 24.6.153.44
May 25th, 2004 18:05
Having negative presumption means the neg can run an aff case and win? *confused*
Posted from: 24.117.33.245
May 25th, 2004 18:54
Happens all the time, dude. Sheesh. Get with the circuit.
Posted from: 24.46.121.154
May 25th, 2004 19:43
Prashant - I agree that certain kinds of Ks *demand* alternatives. I don’t think that all do, however. I think, though, that my initial reservations came from a confusion over Justin’s original piece (sorry, Justin!) - I suppose I was reading “solvency” into places where it wasn’t necessarily listed.
That said, I still think that there are postmodern arguments that do not rely on providing an alternative (other than plain rejection, and if that is truly an “alternative,” disregard the rest of my sentence), but instead demonstrate that the affirmative should simply be rejected to avoid the harms outlined, or rejected because the offensive is neutralized.
Posted from: 24.6.169.125
May 25th, 2004 20:07
I think the necessity of an Alt is dependant on the type of criticism you are running. Certain criticisms like Ordering World, indict a specific method of looking at problems. Without and Alt, such a criticism would be problematic at best because it leaves us no space for considering the problems, and nihilistic at worst in that it never lets is imagine new frameworks for fear of ordering cultures.
In other cases, I think no alt is needed. For example, Palmer ran a Spanos/Said criticism on the mitigation topic that had some burden framework at the top that clearly defined why the crtiicism negated without the necessity of providng a specific alt. Which is good because Rethinking Thinking as we all know, makes about as much sense as traversing the fantasy or becoming a body without organs and joining some lines of flight.
The main objection justin has brought up for no Alt is that it allows for the K to abusively caputre aff ground. I think the K’s that can logically function without an Alt can’t really do that. IE: Gendered Text isn’t really going to be able to capture the 1ac advocacy.
For K’s that don’t really have an alt, I think a good old Bleiker card, or everyone’s favorite CLS Hutchinson and Monahan is enough of an ‘alt’, because the ‘negative criticism solves’ ammounts to saying ‘Vote neg. That solves’
Posted from: 67.113.4.91
May 25th, 2004 21:46
mangus -
you say that some k’s dont need alternatives, because resistance/awareness is sufficient in some cases. However, i would argue resistance and awareness are alternatives in some fashion; they both show some way of evading the impacts of the k, and show a different way of thinking than the assumptions that the AC makes. Most K’s that we write use rejection as the alternative. A K can’t just not have a D subpoint, and i think we agree on that. In fact, i don’t even think our theories are mutually exclusive, where we differ is merely whether or not resistance and awareness can be deemed an ‘alternative’ or not, which is semantical at best.
I think this deals with Justin’s, Navot’s, and Jon’s posts.
Posted from: 69.34.23.183
May 26th, 2004 08:34
I wasn’t saying it was “right” to use presumption; just that strategically, running Ks without alts wouldn’t necessarily cause you to lose rounds, since voting negative on presumption happens often enough…
I also don’t really see the potential for abuse that you talk about just because we grant presumption to the negative. Even if the negative runs multiple case positions, why is that any harder to deal with than any normal round? 7 minutes of an NC is what you have to cover in the 1AR either way.
I also have no clue how giving neg presumption means neg can run an aff case to negate. Aff cases prove resolutions true. And negating doesn’t happen when the resolution is proved true.
And why I give neg presumption:
Resolution = A.
Inverse of Resolution = B.
Many neg cases will argue that the inverse of the resolution is true. Balanced negatives don’t. But we consider them to negate anyways. Why?
Because the negative isn’t bound to proving B to prove the resolution is “not true” (and thereby negated). Rather, all the negative has to do is prove ~A. That is, the statement the resolution makes is not true. So, if the K gives reasons for why A is not true, and thereby prove ~A, then that’s sufficient for negating (so long as we equate negating with “resolution is not true”). I wrote out a fairly detailed logical proof of why it cannot be the case that negatives must prove B to prove ~A [and thereby negate] on the lddebate.org theory section a long long time ago, and I can’t seem to find it.
That’s why I default to giving neg presumption, unless theory arguments are made about the burdens scheme in the round, by the debaters. I think assuming presumption is necessary for me to be able to make decisions in a logical manner for close rounds where most offensive impacts have been taken out.
Posted from: 24.214.120.134
May 26th, 2004 14:55
preshant-
the phrase i took issue with in your post (and i guess i wasnt specific on this) was “alternative framework”. the wording of your post made me think that by “alternative framework” you meant “system where X problem does not exist”. my argument is simply that there is no reason that the negative world has to get RID of the problem. so yeah, i guess my argument boils down to something more akin to “Ks dont have to be unique” (although thats not EXACTLY what i mean) than “Ks dont have to have an alternative.”
also, i think miaskiewicz is right that proving that the resolution is not true (or more accurately proving that the justification used to prove the resolution true is flawed) is probably enough to vote neg. at the same time, im not a huge fan of that sort of theory debate, because it often boils down to the judge picking whatever she feels to be true, since the issue will most likely remain unresolved (as the evnen maxim says: all theory is equal, all theory is…well, you know how it goes.)
still not quite sure if the gulf war was real,
JMM
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 26th, 2004 15:19
i think the statement “k’s don’t have to be unique” is somewhat problematic in the sense that if the k isn’t unique, then the neg links into the k as well, and the impacts of the k can no longer be voting issues. In that scenario, it’s hard to negate, unless every single aff impact is completely taken out. a K needs some way to not link into its own impact scenario, and that’s what i mean by an “alternative framework.”
Posted from: 24.214.120.134
May 26th, 2004 16:37
preshant: this might be getting sort of confusing (partially because i cant decide exactly how to label my argument, and partially because im not sure we’re talking about the same things) but…
i think the objection in your last post is sortof what my first couple of posts were trying to address…i guess my initial argument would actually be most accurately described as “i dont have to solve for the alternative”, but again im not sure if that is exactly what i mean.
my argument, when coupled with the analysis from greg’s post, basically says that:
(1) knowing that youre doing something that is bad/potentially dangerous (for example, threat construction) and still doing it because there is no obvious way to avoid it (threat-con/real politik is, most authors would argue, a natural by-product of identifying/isolating the Self) is preferable to either maliciously or unknowingly doing that thing (ignorance is the worst kind of bliss, sortof). in this case, i suppose the performance of the criticism is the alternative, meaning that neg debaters would need to be prepared for “apology” and “permutation” debates.
(2) neg debaters dont have the same burden as affs do in terms of proving a given statement to be true, so even if i link to the kritik it doesnt matter - i just have to prove the aff is looking at things wrong.
i think im not making much sense any more. seriously, anyone who is confused, feel free to IM “mmangus846″
engaged in self-reflexive criticism,
JMM
Posted from: 24.214.120.134
May 26th, 2004 17:46
navot just pointed out to me that i totally mangled prashant’s name multiple times. mah bad f00 (i apologize for all the other errors i probably made too)
i dont have a cute closing this time,
JMM
Posted from: 12.216.145.123
May 26th, 2004 18:21
mangus just wanted a reason to give out his s/n to any lonely ladies…
ill help u buddy, just call 334-546-9703 girls!!!
Posted from: 64.167.151.117
May 26th, 2004 21:48
no prob about the name dude. it’s better than some have done (pershant, croissant).
i grant that an alternative does not have to solve for the impacts of case. I agree that certain post-modern/structuralist criticisms do not provide alternatives to the methodologies that they indict. However, i take issue with your argument that “even if i link to the kritik it doesnt matter - i just have to prove the aff is looking at things wrong.”
Proving that the aff is looking at things wrong is meaningless unless there’s a benefit to being aware of the, um, “wrongness” of the ontology. That means that if there is no viable alternative system, then evidence needs to be read about how “awareness is key to solve” or “awareness allows us to resist” or something along those lines, or else the k is reduced to being merely observatory. your example of realpolitik can illustrate this.
the NC shell would be:
L: The Aff legitimizes realism by working within the system.
I/L: realism creates a centralized national Self within states.
I: The nationalist ideology necessitates the annihilation of the Other.
A: Awareness of the realist system is key to solve.
This type of K works in my opinion, because the alternative at least mentions why awareness is a good thing. but if the alternative is simply “negating = awareness of realism,” or if there is no alternative at all, the k is reduced to just an observation, rather than a cogent criticism.
just my 2 cents. i’m probably not making any sense right now, but yeah, aim - knawledgez if ppl have questions about this post, or any i’ve made here.
wandering the desert of the Real,
prashant
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 27th, 2004 09:35
Prai’s ‘awareness’ stuff is encompased in the Hutchinson and Monahan card that I talked about. I’ll post it when I get home.
Operating in a temporary autonomous zone,
NT
Posted from: 67.124.252.172
May 27th, 2004 19:22
here it is:
Hutchinson and Monahan, 84
We do not mean to suggest that the extensive CLS critiques of existing law and legal theory are purely negative and without constructive potential. Criticism can be a very creative therapy; criticism can liberate and enlighten. By “unfreezing” the world as it now [*228] appears, the Critical scholars hope to enable individuals to imagine and attain new possibilities for self-development and meaningful social interaction. For the CLSers, criticism is an antidote to the social paralysis induced and sustained by the existing hierarchical nature of society. n125 By reassuring people that things need not always be as they now are, the CLS movement [criticism] can inspire the confidence necessary to reject prevailing arrangements. And because the CLSers believe that “the strength to live with the sober truth will become general [only when] the causes of untruth are removed,” n126 “trashing” is viewed as a valid form of legal scholarship. Indeed, to some of the Critical scholars, it is the “most valid form”: n127
That trashing may reveal truth seems significant if one’s mission as a scholar is to tell the truth. If telling the truth requires one to engage in delegitimation, then that is what one ought to be doing
. . . The point of delegitimation is to expose possibilities more truly expressing reality, possibilities of fashioning a future that might at least partially realize a substantive notion of justice instead of the abstract, rightsy, traditional, bourgeois notions of justice that generate so much of the contradictory scholarship. One must start by knowing what is going on, by freeing oneself from the mystified delusions embedded in our consciousness by the liberal legal world view. I am not defending a form of scholarship that simply offers another affirmative presentation; rather, I am advocating negative, Critical activity [is] the only path that might lead to a liberated future.
i’d uberunderline it down before running it tho.
Posted from: 24.0.180.179
May 27th, 2004 19:35
“An example would be if their argument was 2 + 2 = 4 you would argue that 2 and 2 dont always make up 4, rather its just a memorized fact premised on current power structres. I hope that makes a little more sense.”
HAHAHA
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 28th, 2004 09:49
2+2=5. Or 3. Depending on what we want it to mean at the time.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Submit conform obey.
Embracing the fragile absolute,
nt
Posted from: 24.6.153.44
May 28th, 2004 15:16
If I were a novice and I read the vast majority of this thread I would be extremely confused and put off to the activity. Oh wait, I’m not a novice, and I’m still extremely baffled by the vast majority of the content on this thread. I think it’s really interesting that we are all part of an activity that stresses the skill of communication, and somehow debaters can make posts (with an unlimited amount of time/space to perfect them) that are this convoluted. This criticism obviously doesn’t apply to every post on this thread, but I think it would be cool if posters considered that their audience may have a wider range (from parents to novice to coaches, etc.) than just the upper echelon of debate theory junkies.
Posted from: 24.6.169.125
May 28th, 2004 15:39
Clear language is domination.
Posted from: 69.91.108.246
February 2nd, 2005 23:21
Is realism dead? I am an old debater from the 1980s, and the new age rhetoric of the kritiks school sort of baffles me. Everyone deserves an opinion, so here is mine.
I have no opposition to critical thinking in debate - or
alternative points of view. What sort of surprises me from reading articles
during the last couple of days about “kritiks” on the web is that it kind of
rejects any form of “real world” analogy. It is, in the minds of a few of
the articles that I read, OK to stop a debate in mid-stream and focus
instead on the use of language in a vacuum. At that point, the educational
purpose of debate is skewed beyond belief. As a thinking tool, it is
unequaled in any form of high school activity. But in the real world, the
planet does not stop spinning for people to parse language and supposed
“values” and “dehumanizing” use of language - that approach would simply
grind all domestic and foreign policy actions to a halt.
For example, I read an article by someone named Charles Olney at
http://www.hsdebate.com/archives/theory/old/Olney–Kritik_Theory.html
which said something like “Nazi doctors” doing experiments did not stop and
think about the assumptions inherent in what they were doing, so we should
do the same in the debate world.
Does that theory of Olney’s - by implication - mean that the Allies should
have stopped and considered their “value” assumptions when they:
1. fire-bombed Dresden and bombed other civilian areas with industrial
centers supporting the Nazi war effort?
2. only allowed men to parachute behind enemy lines and land on the beaches
on D-Day?
3. decided to save a million lives and use the atomic bombs in Japan
instead of invading the island?
4. imposed their conception of “international law” - though there were no
such established rules - and instituted war crime trials and punishment on
the Nazis in the Nuerenberg trials?
etc. etc.
All of the above acts would be considered “value-centric” and dehumanizing -
yet they are the only reason these Nazi doctors aren’t still committing
atrocities (as did the Japanese on the populations of captured China).
To ACT and to do good is one heck of lot harder that to talk about doing it.
Until we live in a utopian, egalitarian society which has a purely even
distribution of economic wealth and political power, we are stuck with
trying to come up with some less than perfect solution.
I guess my whole point is that, while it is always a good idea for those in
the minority who feel any sort of oppression to speak out, be protected,
etc. (in fact, the whole purpose of the 14th Amendment to the US
Constitution, with its Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses, and the
statutory provision of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 - the Klan Act) - we have to
live and act in a world that is not perfect.
That’s why I would think it
serves more education purpose in debate to postulate and examine policies,
theories or other approaches with some real world boundaries and a slight
touch of realism (like Emeril - a real world bit of “BAM”).