Kritik+lecture+6-30-10


 * Intro to K and security K**

What is a kritik? An argument that tests the assumptions of the affirmative - Kritiks of the plan vs. kritiks of the advantages (pre and post-fiat) - Kritiks can sometimes be like disads or they can be alternative claims about other ways that it is important to weigh each side when deciding who wins or loses the debate

Basic approaches kritiks take towards affirmatives:

//Post-fiat:// -The plan is imperialist -The plan uses the military, which is violent. We should be pacifists. -The plan uses the state. Statism is bad because it leads to violence. -The plan has the government control people. This is biopolitical and destroys the value to life. -Objectivism: the plan has the government regulate businesses. This destroys individual freedom and is coercive.

//Pre-fiat://

Epistemology: study of what counts as evidence Ontology: study of being Representation: what do we say is true and how do we say it Language: how do we describe what we think to be true and what assumptions underlie these descriptions

Example: Language K: offensive language kritiks – gender, ableist, heterosexist, racist language Representation K: Representations of Iranians as terrorists are based on false assumptions about Islam and terrorism Epistemology: Affirmatives that say that economic growth solves war use biased evidence from capitalists who want to maintain capitalist hegemony. A different kind of approach to knowledge is superior.

Many kritiks are about the debate between positivism/empiricism and constructivism/relativism: __Positivism__: the scientific method is the best way to know anything __Empiricism__: data derived through historical, scientific, and social scientific methods is the best way to know anything. We have to be able to see things to verify them.

__Constructivism:__ reality is socially constructed. What we think is objective and scientific is really a product of the biases and ideologies that go into the process of constructing a truth about something. Ex: George W. Bush needed there to be WMDs in Iraq in order to invade, and so the supposed “science” that showed that there might be bunkers there was used to justify ideology __Relativism__: truth is relative. What is true for one culture or person might not be for another.

Constructivism and relativism are products of //postmodernism// and //post-structuralism//. These are critiques that react to earlier philosophies and theories of knowledge based on positivism and empiricism.

Basic ideas: -No //metanarratives// (all-encompassing theories of how the world operates, i.e. Marxism) -Contingent and fragmented nature of ‘truth’ -Diversity/ multiculturalism -Attention to social constructions -In extreme cases, rejection of science and rationality as components of a flawed modernity

//Identity K’s// : Materialist – concerned with identities that are based on something ‘real’ that one can point to OR Social constructivist – concerned with the social construction of identity

-Feminism: should pay attention to gender. Patriarchy is bad. Feminist approach or movement is good. -Marxism: class conflict is the root cause of all conflict. Capitalism is bad. Revolution or Marxist criticism is good. -Racism: racism is the root cause of all evil. Should reject it in every instance.

//Power K’s// : __Foucault__: Philosophy of history and philosophy of power -Concerned with historical construction of identity through different practices -Genealogy and rejection of teleology -Sovereign (king), disciplinary (prison), bio-power (control over life of populations) -Power is neutral. There are resistances. We should find the cracks and fissures in the structure of power in order to subvert it. __Nietzsche__: problematizing and attempting to change the world comes from our desire to master it -This is self-defeating and nihilistic. -We should reject the affirmative’s call to action. Militarism/statism: Power lies in the state. The affirmative gives it more power. The state is super violent and bad. So is the military.

//Psychoanalysis and psychology K’s:// concerned with all kinds of things, including identity, truth, ethics, capitalism, the root causes of violence -Lacan -Zizek

//Security kritik://

The security kritik is an example of one that engages with the affirmative both pre and post-fiat. -Strategic flexibility -Can help us understand the components of a kritik and how to use it

__Thesis__: Threats to security are constructs. -This means that they do not exist until someone says that they do and gives evidence to prove it. -The epistemology of a security analyst is that we can look to historical examples, psychology, and positivist models of knowledge in order to “know” the truth about security threats like terrorism and proliferation -Critics say this epistemology is flawed because it is always based on a pre-supposition about threats and who perpetuates them -Terrorism: are its causes religious? Social? Economic? -“One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” -Cyber-terrorism: terrorists can expand into new areas like the internet and defeat us there. Often accompanied with claims of this being the worst form of terrorism. -Rogue states- literally ones that do not do whatever the U.S., IAEA, or UN tells them to do -Spread of AIDS from Africa- assumes the continent is infested -Proliferation of nuclear weapons – assumes that non-western countries are bad at managing their arsenals and that western countries are better/ safer -Environmental securitization: getting control of water resources is key to stability -Realism (idea that states act in self-interest) is problematic because it naturalizes violent things states do

-Realism inevitable/ good

Why is it a reason to reject the aff? Because threats to security are constructed through //language// and //representation//, we should be skeptical of the affirmative’s advantage claims.

AND,

There is something uniquely damaging about buying into these assumptions. It perpetuates violence against those we see as different from us. It is the reason the war on terror exists, etc.

The alternative is to reject calls for security based on fear and massive losses of life – these are scare tactics that are used to make us desire or not criticize war -Could be just to reject the affirmative’s representations -Could be to do something more like deconstruct security rhetoric

The key questions in this debate are: can we know the truth about threats and how do we respond?

//A demonstration debate to highlight some of the issues and parody both sides:// http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6722485/# media type="custom" key="6479429"

//Recap from video://

What impact claims are being made? -Terrorism, nuclear terrorism, cyber, marshmallow, polar bear -Economic collapse
 * What does the video reveal to us about the way these impacts are presented?

What epistemological claims are being made? -Can’t know if threats are real -Misinterpreting the nature of actors leads to false conclusions about how to respond
 * What does the video reveal about the way that negative teams use critiques of truth construction?

What ontological claims are being made? -Discourses of security threats produce false dangers and actually cause terrorism

How do ideology and politics influence arguments on both sides?

How does Sarah Palin answer the link arguments initially? -How about after he reiterates them?

What alternative does Larry King propose?

How do you interpret the way that Sarah Palin keeps repeating herself and not answering Larry King’s arguments because she thinks she is right?

What does Larry King do in response? Is his exasperation effective in conveying his argument or conclusively winning it?

//What is strategic about this kritik?// -Contest big impacts and claims that we should try to save lives from catastrophic impacts like extinction -Question the evidence they present -Use the evidence to make an offensive argument about the aff doing something that is bad -Independent impacts: a. threat construction is violent, b. positivist truth claims are bad in general -Strategic bc affs will often respond with “we have an advantage” without defending their truth claims -Framework: aff must justify their assumptions before we can decide if their advantages are true. We do not know if x country will act in a particular way that is predicted in their evidence if we do not question the assumptions of their studies. This means they can’t access their impact claims without justifying their epistemology -Security dilemma as a case turn : idea that security produces more insecurities – build up of arms, etc. -Alternative: think of it as a CP. The net benefit is the link to the kritik. You don’t have to win that it solves the aff necessarily but it should avoid your links and in some way solve the “root cause” of the aff’s harms. This nullifies their offense in the same way as a CP -Theory issues: -Is it a plan inclusive kritik? -Is it cheating to say the aff’s impacts don’t matter unless they justify their assumptions? -Are permutations legitimate and why?

//Skills for afternoon practicum// :

Close reading and running a reps K: -Sit next to 1AC -Take their evidence -Link block: On a separate sheet of paper or document, type out links to your K by looking at affirmative evidence. -For each “link”- cite their evidence, quote from it or describe it, and impact your link. Insert evidence or cite a card you’ve previously read if appropriate. -Lather, rinse, repeat. -Go line by line- don’t group it all together. Recognize when stuff is related

[DO Activity #1: CLOSE READING EXERCISE]

//How not to be a stupid or annoying K debater// :

-Avoid jargon. Substitute definitions of words. -Avoid words like “always” and phrases like “zero point of the holocaust.” Say “no value to life in their framework” if you must but impact it in terms of the affirmative. -Stupid overviews are ones that go on way too long and do not do anything new or useful. K overviews should be like DA overviews. -State thesis of your argument (example: “the affirmative engages in flawed representations of security that construct threats in order to eliminate them”) -State what the alternative does -Save the link analysis and other specific references to 2AC arguments for the line-by-line -Write a link block (doing close reading). Read it where they say “no link” but make sure to answer their actual argument. -Think in terms of offense and defense. Your kritik is like a DA without uniqueness but the alternative gives it uniqueness. Debate the alternative like a CP. Think strategically about how the alternative solves certain arguments. Be honest with yourself about what the alt can solve and what it cannot. -The best kritik debaters are those that prove that the affirmative cannot access their offense. This is why they are kind of cheating but also why they are strategic. **Answering the K:**

Basics: always have: -Overview: should change from round to round but having basic explanation of links is good –modular/ 1 sentence plus explanation of alternative -Includes 1 statement about what the aff does – “the affirmative’s security representations…” -Specific examples either here or in the debate but at the very least state impacts and why they outweigh they aff -Link block: close reading like we did this morning. You should make time for this. It makes all the difference. You can still insert the cards into it but read your link analysis as tags -Perm blocks: these are different. Know when they are severance, intrinsic, etc. Make theory args- mult persms, sev, intrinsic so they can’t go for it -Framework explanation- both theory and substance -Make things offensive for you. Perms and turns to the K = new links -If they don’t go for perm, say alt solves more than it does

//How not to be a stupid or annoying K debater// :

-Avoid jargon. Substitute definitions of words. -Avoid words like “always” and phrases like “zero point of the holocaust.” Say “no value to life in their framework” if you must but impact it in terms of the affirmative. -Stupid overviews are ones that go on way too long and do not do anything new or useful. K overviews should be like DA overviews. -State thesis of your argument (example: “the affirmative engages in flawed representations of security that construct threats in order to eliminate them”) -State what the alternative does -Save the link analysis and other specific references to 2AC arguments for the line-by-line -Write a link block (doing close reading). Read it where they say “no link” but make sure to answer their actual argument. -Think in terms of offense and defense. Your kritik is like a DA without uniqueness but the alternative gives it uniqueness. Debate the alternative like a CP. Think strategically about how the alternative solves certain arguments. Be honest with yourself about what the alt can solve and what it cannot. -The best kritik debaters are those that prove that the affirmative cannot access their offense. This is why they are kind of cheating but also why they are strategic.