Skip to content
July 5, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Debating the Kritic–John Turner at the Emory Debate Institute 2013

Shell–4 parts
A. Link
B. Impact
C. Optional: Reason to Prioritize or Evaluate the Debate Differently. Role of the ballot or framework argument
D. Alternative. Alternative pathway. A different way to approach the world.

Uniqueness is not on the list. Disad is plan focused. A critique tends to be focused on the 1ac. What are the choices that go into writing–what story does it tell.

The 1ac as a worldview or approach–not just the plan. (doesn’t mean you don’t talk about the plan or its results)

Shortest definition of a Critique:
An argument that criticizes the assumptions, methods, and/or values that make an affirmative appear desirable.
Critique change the way the affirmative approaches the debate. (changes how impacts are evaluated–at a fundamental level often)

Uniqueness–the plan and only the plan creates that outcome. Uniqueness is a powerful argumentative tool, but its only a tool. Its not the only way to evaluate those consquences.

Critique is a way to bring structural and historical–which shapes the construction of the 1ac. The underlying assumptions which brought us to the 1ac are wrong.

*** Card about the process. ***
Problem-solving theory versus critique theory. Aff = problem-solving approaches.
Aff = problem/solution. Affs dont change the social order–they take those as granted.

This post on the 3nr has a number of cards that talk about this distinction. It is highly, highly recommended that you print and bookmark this post from the 3nr (here).

How did we get here? Calls social institutions into question. Framework for action. (ie this set of tools for engagement and economic foreign policy)-it challenges the parameters

Theories is alway for someone. Critical theory lays these bare. (normative choice. use context clues to work through. take a stab…. We gotta figure it out). Norm establishes a standard–should be or ought to be.

Challenges–Goals, values, etc… Assists in identifying alternatives to the existing world order.

This changes how we approach link arguments. (I think its different from how we think about disad link arguments). Link arguments work as examples of the choices the affirmative makes. Link arguments explain how and where those assumptions show up.

(15 minutes)

Distinction between Disad links and Critique links:
Disad: A causes B causes C.
Critique: the 1ac is an example of the structural assumptions. the worldview we are criticizing does show up in the 1ac. Deciding about the importance of that assumption for the 1ac–the strength of that assumption.

(ie US is a force for good–US is generally good for humanity)

Its not just a description–its a choice (its about the choices–the story they tell about the world).

Link arguments are your way for debating the case (NK: I agree and disagree)

For instance, critique of American exceptionalism or critique of American imperialism (better for Cubans or bring dependence and control). History of US involvement in Cuba. (ie prior to the resolution).

Ways to make link arguments good.
Case debate in the 2nc: Explain phrases from the 1NC….and phrases in the 1AC. (soft power = excluse. It allow for economic cooperation versus coersion or influence or leverage).

You are unpacking the 1ac–where the assumptions show up.

Skip over impact arguments for a second–because its so similar to disad impact.

(23 minutes)

Prioritization argument–the judge should use a different set of concerns
(If our link arguments are just examples–why do they matter. Explains why those examples matter.)
1. Our critique is a prior issue–the problems we’ve identified have to be addressed before other issues can be decided. The aff can’t be evaluated till the assumptions used are tested.
2. Framework. A critique establishes a different framework for evaluating the debate.
A different role for the ballot. You should act differently. Not just of the affirmative plan, but of the affirmative advocacy. What does it mean to endorse what the affirmative says?
a) should not evaluate
b) to weigh the affs impact we would have to make some other ethically unacceptable choice (even if improve the prospects for the world–given the history–it is ethically unacceptable). [changes the location of the impact argument–aka ethics]

(30 minutes)

Example: Debate over racial profiling. Ineffective versus Racist (its unacceptable). Shouldn’t be up for debate.

Can do both #1 and #2: “It will fail on its own terms AND those terms are unacceptable” (ie its assumptions & make sense)

3) The judge should only consider the debate from the perspective of BLANK (ie latin american social). Changing your location–changes questions and answers.
4) Discursive or representational critique (who gets to say what–not just “all that matters is language”). Linguistic or language description–its not just a neutral description. We’re never just making a simple description about the world–we are making normative description of the world. Criticizes the assumption of objectivity. The literature often says, “Language constitutes our world” Language builds or makes up or ties it together. We’re not just doing description–we are building that world together.

Shapiro 1992 Evidence. Discurive practice in spatial arrangement–the shape of the arena is taken for granted. (we don’t even think about) Not just what we say–but what we don’t even have to say–exist at a powerful level–it sets the framework for the debate. Establishers eligible speakers and actors and values–things, actions, and relationships. Ventriliquate themselves in the discourse. (what does a ventriloquist do–dumby talks, but ventriloquist really talking–in this case we’re the dumby–we’re not in control–set of histories and assumptions). We might be products of the assumptions we share.

Always be on the look for definitions…good trick.

Discourse. Not just about speech. Its about the unsaid. (this piece of evidence defines it)

Institution–a way of doing things (ie Educational Institution). Space is arranged to situation elgible speakers and actors. Implicit assumptions of education. Room set up of lecture hall or classroom.

(44 to 45 Min)

Change Authority/How authority is distributed–who gets to produce meaningful thought or action?
In education policy–who gets to produce meaningful educational statements? Teachers, parents, and things like student government only scratch the surface.

Acting out assumed roles–(some might be correct). Making an isn’t assumption is bad. Assumptions can be dangerous–what the assumptions that might be bad or dangerous???

Connection between thinking about:
speakers and actors differently

The type of world created by their choices–the way they constructed that world. They are unacceptable or unethical.

(49 minutes)

Last category = Alternatives.
???
Uniqueness–how things are. Descriptive statements (ie president has lots of po cap or the government is being fiscally restrained now, US influence in latin america is low now–just the way they are)

Most critique criticize a purely descriptive approach.

An alternative is different from a CP–its not a competing policy option that takes place.
Its a task for the judge. Its a way of judging–that challenges you to think differently. (remember the Cutler evidence from earlier).

Problem/Solving theory. Too much G-chat. Problem/solution.
Are we teaching in such a way so that they won’t use G-chat (student instruction so they are involved & not playing games).

Alternative way of thinking or approaching the issue the affirmative says is a problem.
The alternative problematizes the affirmative–it turns those assumptions back into problems–we got to go back to the drawing board. That set of assumptions is itself the problem.

Assumptions as solutions.

Problem is going into the room in the first place–goto go to a different space to do education. Lecture hall.
Could have done something really really different. That is linked to that discussion of prior question.

That history that causes us to do things in this way–thats the problem.
Need something that doesn’t take lecture hall for granted.
Instead of lecture hall–think economic engagement.

1) Colonialism
2) Capitalism (way of organizing the economy = assume)
3) International relations, security, international system (what are the values of foreign policy)
4) Economic development (economic model–we think there is a point B or one model works for all)

Lot of the argument fit that template.

The way that you debate the case is (fundamentally) different.

This is not a perfect way to get out of uniqueness arguments. Can’t just say “this is a critique–don’t have to have uniqueness” You instead are making an “even if its non-unique”–its still true argument.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: