LD's Final Frontier: In Defense of the Kritik (1 of 2)

LD’s Final Frontier: In Defense of the Kritik (1 of2)

By Rodrigo Paramo

10/6/13

This is thefirst part of a series of articles on the K in LD. This article will give anoverview of how a traditional kritik functions within the parameters of LD, providea structure to follow for those looking to run them, and identify some problemswithin the community that must be addressed to make it a “k-friendly”environment. The second part of this series will cover more specificcriticisms, provide a tentative solution to the backlash K debaters receive alltoo often, and expand on the benefits of a community that has welcomed the K.

As an event, LD is not one tohesitate when adapting arguments from policy: plans and counterplans are anattempt at replicating policy in a smaller forum, and the all too common theorydebate nowadays is a pretty stark copy-and-paste of CX’s framework arguments. Eventhough plans, counterplans and theory all faced some stark pushback when theywere first introduced into the activity, it has become a standard practice indebate rounds to see constructives structured with 3 minutes of pre-emptive theoryspikes before any substantive discussion is had. Even stranger, a counterplanis no longer unheard of (in fact, it’s often paired with more theory to justifyit). Why is the LD community so quick to accept arguments that impose morearbitrary theoretical rules on debate yet so unwilling to extend that samelevel of acceptance to the kritik? The answer is simple: not only do individualdebaters view the kritik as a lower form of debate, a generic position theycriticize for its ability to be read on every topic the community as a whole islargely unwilling to allow the kritik to spread because of the uncomfortable confrontationsit will bring with it: a confrontation with the community’s status as exclusionaryand elitist.

A discussion of the kritik inLD necessitates that the community as a whole is familiar with what exactly akritik entails, and while I'm hesitant to draw a static definition between what doesand does not constitute a critical argument, there are a few steadfast rulesthat every kritik should follow:

• Every kritik should have a link to either theresolution, or the specific affirmative advocacy; the link allows the debaterto justify the discussion, and this is where the kritik is often discredited.Critical debaters all too often utilize very generic literature to justify theirkritiks, which presents critical arguments as a lazy form of debate. At thisyear’s Grapevine tournament, I overheard a conversation between debaters saying“the kritik can’t possibly be that hard because C.K. McClatchy won the TOC withnothing but 2 Wilderson books.” This reductive view of the kritik is one of thelargest problems with LD, because it portrays K debate as requiring nothingmore than carding postmodern literature and largely overlooks the amount ofwork that goes into understanding the argument and crafting a cohesive negativestrategy.  

• Once the link has been established, the kritik needsa discussion of the impacts that the affirmative causes (typically a systemicimpact that cannot be resolved absent the criticism), and it needs to providecomparative weighing analysis between the world of the kritik and the impactsof the affirmative. This impact analysis is especially necessary against verypolicy-heavy affi­rmatives that will go hard for “extinction first”, or verytruth-testy affirmatives that attempt to prove the resolution true before theimpact level is addressed. 
  

• The final element is an advocacy of some form: thealternative. Alternatives allow debaters freedom in that they range from beingas simple as “reject capitalism in all forms” to more nuanced micropoliticaladvocacies, as long as their methodology is capable of solving (or challenging)the larger structures that the kritik indicts. The alternative is typicallywhere the majority of the debate occurs, so it’s important that when a moregeneric criticism is being read, the alternative is contextualized either tothe topic or the affirmative advocacy. Judges often find themselves unwillingto vote on positions they view as too generic, so a level of specificity on thepart of the debater is crucial to ensure they don’t start the debate round at adisadvantage.
  

The last part of the kritikis where debaters truly get to make the argument their own: while the link,impact and alternative ensure that the substance of the criticism has beentaken care of, these can only function as floating offense absent a weighingmechanism that can be utilized to evaluate the debate round. The weighingmechanism can take a couple of forms, depending on the critique and whatexactly it is criticizing. A couple of the more common arguments are listedbelow though the list is far from exhaustive and innovative ways to weighadvocacies are certainly to be encouraged.

• A traditional value/criterion or standard structurefocused on “challenging [x]” (for criticisms that speak out against themarginalization of certain populations or against singular institutions)
  

• Framework arguments that reconceptualize the debate space as a site for political activism (for micropolitical positions that view the ballot as a way of effecting change in the “real world”)

• Role of the ballot arguments that view the ballot asmore than a win and a loss, but rather as a way for the judge to endorse thealternative (almost every criticism works well with these arguments)
  

The structure for a kritikoutlined above closely mirrors some arguments that already exist incontemporary LD debate, which raises the question of why judges are so hesitantto accept what is effectively a DA/CP combination simply because it draws froma distinct philosophical base. Allowing kritiks to be more publicly acceptedinto LD debate requires a movement that doesn’t paint the kritik as anesoteric, overtly dense argument, but rather invites others to join in on anargument that is all too often marginalized. Current critical debaters shouldengage in reading specific criticisms that show the kritik as more than just ageneric last-minute strategy to ensure that the community stops viewing them asa lower form of debate, and they should stop painting the kritik solely as anargument that challenges debate’s structure. While kritiks can certainly allowfor a challenge to the way debate operates in the status quo, they don’t haveto; in fact, a majority of kritiks operate perfectly fine within the currentstructure of debate and don’t involve a dramatic reconceptualization of thedebate round.

Adopting kritiks intothe current paradigm of LD would not require much. Most topics within the lastyear have underlying assumptions worth questioning, a questioning that isoverwhelmingly found in critical literature. The acceptance of kritiks wouldallow for us as a community to question these (topic-specific) assumptionswhile accessing a depth of research that remains largely untouched in currentdebate rounds. While debaters are quick to point to the kritik as an example ofa generic debate position that kills topic education, it’s important toremember that resolutions go through extensive editing before they areselected, and by the time they are released each word has been deemed importantto the meaning of the topic. When such time is dedicated to framing theresolutions, each word should be viewed as equally important.

For example, take alook at the September/October topic from 2012:The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the sameconstitutional due process protections it grants to citizens. Every topicgoes through an extensive editing process, and a negative that questions thehistory and formulation of the “terrorist” subject should not be viewed as lesstopic-specific than one that chooses to focus on due process protections. Debatersexpecting to debate this topic should have a good understanding of terrorism toengage in quality substantive debate, and asking the affirmative to justify theassumptions behind the resolution is far from an outrageous demand.

Acceptingthe kritik allows for debaters to access a trove of critical philosophy that istypically excluded from debate rounds without sacrificing topic-specificeducation. The call to accept the K as a valid form of argumentation does notmean we sacrifice every other style of debate nor does it mean that debaterswould be under any obligation to read the kritik. It does mean that debaterswho choose to read a kritik would be able to do so without worry of predispositionsagainst the argument lessening their chances of winning the round, and it doesmean that critical debaters would no longer have to wade through pages oftheory before they can get to the substance of the position. These requirementswouldn’t radically change the structure of LD, many rounds already occur whollyon the substantive plane without having to resort to theoretical abusescenarios; expanding these to include critical philosophy can only help thecommunity as a whole.

CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AT VB3

Ed. Note: Rodrigo is a 2013 graduate of Reagan High School in San Antonio, TX where he competed in LD for 3 years and was a bid recipient at the Houston Memorial tournament. His senior year he competed in policy debate. During this time, Rodrigo and his partner acquired a bid at the University of Texas tournament and culminated his career with a finals appearance at the TFA State tournament. He currently attends the University of Texas in Dallas.