• Examples we talked about in class

• Ferguson, Missouri

• You tube commercials

• Movie trailers / Parodies

• Unnecessary censorship

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

critiques

KRITIKS

K I TI K DEFINITIONʁ ˈ ː

German for “judgment or review”

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KRITIK” SOMETHING?• It means that we are playing the role of sophists

• Sophistry – questions the truth behind the reality that is proposed by the opponent

• It is a question of lower case t truth versus capital t truth

• Often times it surround the language choices that we use to describe the world

• Occurs in the warrant component of an argument (Toulmin)

• TWO key theories that we will talk about

• Kenneth Burke – Terministic Screens

• Robert Entman – Framing

KENNETH BURKE – TERMINISTIC SCREENS

• According to Kenneth Burke, language functions as a symbolic action that influences the ways that we interpret meaning because it can “deflect, reflect, and select” certain forms of reality

• In other words, the way that we describe something can influence the way that the audience interprets the message

• Examples: Sportscenter

• Sephir Whorf Hypothesis – the idea of linguistic relativity

• Example: weather

KENNETH BURKE – TERMINISTIC SCREENS

KENNETH BURKE – TERMINISTIC SCREENS

Freedom Fighter Terrorists

ROBERT ENTMAN – FRAMING

• Robert Entman – writes about media coverage and how it can control the ways that we interpret messages

• Argues that “framing entails selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation and/or solution”

• Says that the way that the media coverage provides an interpretation of the moment and tells the audience how to think about it

• Think about it like a picture frame – picture frames restrict the visibility of what is revealed to the audience

ENTMAN – FRAMING

ENTMAN – FRAMING

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?• It means we get to debate about philosophy

• Epistemology— theories of knowledge

• Answers the question of what we know• Ontology— theories of being

• Answers the question of why we think what we think• Deontology – theories of morality / ethics

• Example: Moral Absolutism

EPISTEMOLOGY – THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE • These discussions provide an analysis the nature of knowledge and how it relates to

connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification

• Three primary questions that epistemic questions attempt to address:

• What is knowledge?

• How do we gain knowledge?

• Are there limits to knowledge?

• There are two primary methods for understanding knowledge production

• Empiricism

• Rationalism

EPISTEMOLOGY - RATIONALISM• Rationalism – knowledge comes from our ability to reason

• “letter of the law”

• A priori truths known to be true without any reference to experience

• That knowledge shapes the way that we understand experience.

• Examples:

• All bachelors are unmarried males.

• A cat is a feline creature.

• 2 + 2 = 4.

• A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

EPISTEMOLOGY – EMPIRICISM• Empiricism – knowledge comes from experience

• “spirit of the law”

• A posteriori statements are known to be true (or false) as a result of experience

• That experience shapes the way that we interpret the application or validity of text

• Examples:

• The cat is black

• Marriage is awful

• Children are the worst

EPISTEMOLOGY – WAS IT A CATCH?

EPISTEMOLOGY – WAS IT A CATCH?• Letter of the law – the rulebook provides us with a way to evaluate experience

• “If a player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, he must maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground,” the narrator of the video says. “If the player does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, the pass is incomplete.”

• Spirit of the law – eye test – watching the play shapes how we apply the rule

• Took three steps

• Made a “football move”

ONTOLOGY – THEORY OF BEING

• Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality and how that relates to each individuals understanding of the world around them

• Our understanding of our purpose in the world changes the way that we relate to the world

• There are two basic ontologies for how we understand our relationship to the world around us

• Positivism

• literal

• Interpretivism

• figurative

ONTOLOGY - POSITIVISM• Also known as logical Positivism is a way of understanding the world through objective

knowledge

• your approach to the world is based on the scientific method

• Occurs through the process of deductive reasoning

• Uses “top-down” logic to describe the world around us

• Knowledge is objective and based on generalizable concepts

• Arguments are verifiable through scientific testing

• The goal of inquiry is to develop a proof that provides a generalizable understanding of the world based on statistics to support your argument

• Proofs are based on quantitative evidence

• Emphasizes the concept of pragmatism

ONTOLOGY - INTERPRETIVISM• Also known as behavioralism, Arises from a Critique of Using the Natural Sciences as a

Model for Social Research

• Your approach to the world is based on inquiry and analytics

• Occurs through the process of inductive reasoning

• Use “bottom-up” approaches to inquiry and understanding the world around us – assesses the world through analytics and ethnographies

• Knowledge is subjective

• The goal of inquiry is to prove that there are relative truths

• Proofs are based on qualitative evidence

WHAT IS A KRITIK?• A critique often times questions the assumptions behind the language that we use to

describe the world around us – changes the framework for how we understand debate

• Fiat is an illusion – no longer focus on a simulation of policy action – that we should focus on the real world instead of a simulated world

• Fiat = changes the debate from questions of “would x pass” to “should x pass”

• Individual action replaces policy action – students should focus on individual action instead of government action

• Criticizes the utilitarian method for evaluating debates – says that debates should focus on deontology rather than consequentialism

I: PARTS OF THE K

•Link•Impact •Alternative

TYPES OF KRITIKS• Re-Thinking — challenge the way participants construct or systemize reasoning

 

• Rhetoric and/or language — attacks the opponent for using words or language in a harmful way

 

• Values — identifies and attacks ethical or moral beliefs behind what debaters say or do.

 

LINK DEBATE

• Kritiks, just like disads, have links

• The links can be divided into three basic categories

• Language – It might be to any language or assumption made in your evidence

• Harm areas – The justifications for action that their scenario provides

• Systems – The representations of world

• Example: If you assume that the environment should be protected because of the benefits to humans — that is a link to a kritik

IMPACT

• Just like disadvantages, Kritiks have impacts

• Unlike disadvantages, Kritiks often have deontological impacts—or something you should reject no matter what.

• Can someone think of a deontological argument?

IMPACT

• Kritiks often also have systemic impacts—meaning the continuation of a system causes oppression or even makes extinction inevitable

• The textbook example of this is the Capitalism Kritik—it will argue:

• Capitalism is unethical

• Capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction

• Can someone think of a reason why this might be true?

ALTERNATIVE

• Kritiks usually have an alternative.

• The best way to think about the Kritik alternative is to think of it like a counterplan

• An alternative is often to withdraw from an oppressive system or to rethink the oppressive structure

• What is an alternative to the capitalism Kritik?

KRITIK EXAMPLE

• A) Framework: The judge is not a policy maker—the judge is a critical educator assessing the assumptions of the affirmative

• B) Link: The plan upholds the profit motive of capitalism—aquaculture merely makes capitalism look sustainable and environmentally friendly

• C) Impact: Capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction—extinction is inevitable unless we challenge capitalism.

• D) Alternative: The judge should intellectually withdraw support from the system of capitalism

ALTERNATIVE• Answers the “What should we do about it?” question

• There are many different types…

• Re-think

• Reject

• Nothing

• Action Alternatives

• Helps generate Uniqueness

FRAMING• One of the most important parts of the block strategy on the critique

• Impact Framing

• Which impacts matter and which impacts don’t?• Role of the ballot

• Which arguments should the judge evaluate at the end of the round?

• In what order should the judge evaluate arguments?

• Sequencing

• Which arguments come first? IS the criticism a prior question to the Affirmatives action?

• Counter-Perm[

ANSWERING THE K

• Solvency: Alt doesn’t solve

• Theory: Defend your framework

• Offense: Prove why your affirmative is a good idea, and their theory is a bad one

• Perms: Combine the affirmative and the alternative

ALT DOESN’T SOLVE THE CASE

• Primary way to beat the K is to prove the alt doesn’t solve the case

• Then win the case outweighs

• Pragmatism: You should assess what can pragmatically be done

• Specificity: Prove that the alternative won’t solve the specifics of the case

• Why does challenging capitalism solve for aquaculture?

THEORY

• Framework is usually the #1 theory argument

• Debate should only be policy

• AFF choice

• Resolution is a policy resolution

• Fairness: infinite # of philosophies & discursive arguments

• Weigh our AFF

• Vague alts can get you somewhere as well—usually as a solvency deficit to the kritik

• Cross-X can the alternative ever do the AFF? If so, why is the alternative inconsistent with the AFF?

OFFENSE

• Best way to generate offense is to indict the theory

• Argue capitalism is good, argue neo-liberalism is good

• Also author theory arguments like Heidegger’s theory leads to Nazism etc.

PERMS

• Always, always permute a kritik

• Argue “do both” and “do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt.”

• What is the difference?

• If the alternative can do the plan, then “do the alternative” also works.

EXAMPLE OF A KRITIK FRONT-LINE

• 1) The Kritik doesn’t solve the case:

• A) The Kritik doesn’t solve for dependence on oil

• B) The Kritik doesn’t solve our specific scenario of economic downfall

• 2) The debate should be about is the plan better than a policy alternative or the status quo

• A) AFF choice makes us flexible to be both a policy and a kritik debater

• B) The resolution is a policy resolution—it asks what should be done

• C) The implication is to reject the kritik or allow us to weigh our AFF

• 3) Capitalism is good—it solves for the environment

• 4) Permute: do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative

K-BOMB 1: UNPREDICTABILITY

• “We can’t evaluate consequences” usually the experts are as accurate as “monkeys throwing darts at a dartboard.”

• Why is it important not to drop this?

• Usually you answer this by saying that while there are no absolute truths, there can be limited truths.

K-BOMB 2: ETHICS ARE ALL THAT MATTER

• This is the second side of the consequences debate—that they don’t matter.

• Deontology—we have certain principles we should not violate—no matter what.

• To answer this, you have to win that consequences are key to ethics

K-BOMB 3: ONTOLOGY COMES FIRST

• Ontology is the theory of being

• It is the “I” in the “I think”

• Are we corrupted people, are we evil?

• Famous card from Zimmerman that ontological damnation o/ws nuclear war.

• Answer this by saying we will never get to a discussion of consequences, because we can think about ontology forever.

K-BOMB 4: EPISTEMOLOGY COMES FIRST

• Epistemology is how we know what we know.

• How do you know that capitalism saves the environment?

• Perhaps our sources are corrupted or biased or have incentives to create war

• The best answer is to say that even if we don’t know everything, we can know some things.

K-BOMB 5: FIAT IS AN ILLUSION

• Fiat is the assumption that the plan should happen

• This argument says that the plan will never actually happen

• Argues that because the plan never happens, you can claim no impacts from the plan

• Frequently run with the “representations are all that matter” K-bomb

K-BOMB 6: REPRESENTATIONS ARE ALL THAT MATTER

• This is the “discourse is all that matters” argument.

• They say that all we are doing is talking

• They say that representations create reality

• Can you give an example of representations creating reality?

• Best answer is to say that an over focus on representations distracts from policy

K-BOMB 7: “X” IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF EVERYTHING

• “x” is something like capitalism, patriarchy, statism, etc.

• Challenge that anything is the root cause of everything else.

• There are proximate causes, but no root causes

K-BOMB 8: THERE IS NO VALUE TO LIFE IN YOUR FRAMEWORK

• Usually this is because you justify “killing to save”

• How could the affirmative justify killing to save?

• Challenge this by saying that life always has meaning

K-BOMB 9: YOUR IMPACT IS INEVITABLE

• They will say that a certain system makes extinction inevitable

• This means you should “try or die” you should try to fight capitalism, patriarchy, etc or we all die

• Prove that extinction is not inevitable—life is getting better—the environment is getting better