Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's a "Kritik"?

AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 1:40:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

Going against an already assumed resolution. Like if it I argued that the banning guns would save lives, a kritik would be that humanity is evil and therefore all humans deserve to die, so killing them would be good. This is usually regarded as "not cool", but lots of people still do it. *cough Zaradi*
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 1:40:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 5:04:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 1:40:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 5:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

To undermine the assumption of the topic.

So if the resolution where... Animals have a right to life. You would expect pro to argue yes and con no.

A Kritik on that resolution could be, there is no such thing as rights.

Then the debate would become about if rights exist rather than if animals have a specific right.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,761
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 6:14:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

The other definitions are the more common usages (especially on DDO), but it can also undermine the concept of debate. I've seen people argue (in real life debates) that judges should have to turn around in a debate because they are inclined to make a determination based on appearances interfering with the quality of arguments.

Not that the particular kritik has any validity, but a kritik basically dodges the obvious issue or position and criticizes something not originally focused on in the debate.

In high school I was notorious for arguing my opponent's cases were all prima facie when it came to morality, and that even things like the right to life didn't even really exist. And I could basically keep that case instead of changing it between the topics of nuclear disarmament and democratic process.

Most people find it to be harmful to the discussion of the topic.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 6:52:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 4:58:00 PM, Ajabi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 1:40:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 6:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 4:58:00 PM, Ajabi wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ask the almighty Zaradi-da-hottie.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:11:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Alright, alright, I'll make my appearance.

Kritiks, modeling the German version of the English word "critique", are cases that challenge assumptions within the resolution or within your opponent's case. There are two kinds of kritiks -- pre-fiat Ks and post-fiat Ks.

Pre-fiat Ks talk about the ways that your opponent approaches answering the resolutional question and how they're either wrong, harmful, or lead to something that is wrong/harmful. For example, if I were to argue that we should give animals rights because it reduces animal suffering, a pre-fiat kritik of this position would be that trying to reduce suffering is a bad thing, and that we shouldn't be looking to reduce suffering, this would be a pre-fiat K on the topic.

Post-fiat Ks, as opposed to pre-fiat Ks, talk about the results of affirming and how they would lead to disastrous results. For example, if we stay with the animal rights topic, a post-fiat K could argue that establishing new rights serves as a proxy for the government to assert more totalitarian control over us, which could lead to a lot of disastrous harms to our humanity and value to living.

To answer a lot of the things that are commonly said toward why kritiks are bad:

"It's distracts from the topic."

tl;dr - My bad for attacking points of your argument you didn't want me to attack. Sorry for thinking that this was a debate. Whoopsies.

- Yes and no. Yes in that if we're having an animal rights debate and I'm not explicitly talking about why animal rights are good/bad, one could say I'm "distracting from the topic". But no in that these are things that the cases for/against animal rights are assuming to be true. Last I checked debate was about asking questions and making arguments toward why things we're arguing are wrong...

Moreover, to say that a kritik being raised against you isn't topical raises problematic questions about /your/ case. How a kritik gains relevance in a debate is that it links to either a) the resolution (e.g. rights are what the government uses to control us), or b) to the opponent's case (e.g. my opponent's attempt to reduce suffering ruins human worth). If these links are missing, that's one thing. But if these links are present, whether or not it talks about what you explicitly wanted it to talk about is irrelevant to the fact that it directly pertains to the topic. If I'm arguing that the creation of rights allows for the government to control us against our will, saying that it distracts from an animal rights debate makes literally zero sense because the kritik argues for a reason why the creation of a new right (i.e. animal rights) is a bad thing and we shouldn't do it. Just because it doesn't take the form that you wanted it to take doesn't mean that it's not a topical argument.

"They're confusing/unclear."

tl;dr - Blame the site/arguer, not the argument

- Lack of clarity is one of the reasons I'm not the biggest fan of online debate because there's no good way to run cross-examination portions of debate with how DDO is set up. In most/all forms of debate IRL, there's a portion of the debate specifically reserved for asking your opponent questions about their case. This way, if there was something about their case you didn't particularly understand, you could get them to explain it within the round.

But ignoring this short-coming, the clarity of the argument is directly tied to the debater's ability to clearly and accurately portray the information they're providing and provide it in a way that a common reader can keep up with the gist of the argument. This can be done with overviews of their case, explanations of the impacts of the arguments and evidence used, and clarifications of arguments via rebuttals.

It's natural for kritikal literature to get a little dense. You can't really talk about how the Western view of epistemology strangles the life from any conception of autonomy from a sense of the human self without losing a few people. But it's the debater's job to relay this in terms that don't intentionally keep people from following their line of logic. If they aren't doing this, then they aren't doing their job as a debater properly.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:11:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 6:52:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 4:58:00 PM, Ajabi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 1:40:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:54:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:11:35 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:17:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:15:55 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:11:35 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:19:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:17:00 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:15:55 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:11:35 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:20:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:19:18 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:17:00 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:15:55 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:11:35 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:11:09 PM, Zaradi wrote:
"It's distracts from the topic."

tl;dr - My bad for attacking points of your argument you didn't want me to attack. Sorry for thinking that this was a debate. Whoopsies.

- Yes and no. Yes in that if we're having an animal rights debate and I'm not explicitly talking about why animal rights are good/bad, one could say I'm "distracting from the topic". But no in that these are things that the cases for/against animal rights are assuming to be true. Last I checked debate was about asking questions and making arguments toward why things we're arguing are wrong...

Moreover, to say that a kritik being raised against you isn't topical raises problematic questions about /your/ case. How a kritik gains relevance in a debate is that it links to either a) the resolution (e.g. rights are what the government uses to control us), or b) to the opponent's case (e.g. my opponent's attempt to reduce suffering ruins human worth). If these links are missing, that's one thing. But if these links are present, whether or not it talks about what you explicitly wanted it to talk about is irrelevant to the fact that it directly pertains to the topic. If I'm arguing that the creation of rights allows for the government to control us against our will, saying that it distracts from an animal rights debate makes literally zero sense because the kritik argues for a reason why the creation of a new right (i.e. animal rights) is a bad thing and we shouldn't do it. Just because it doesn't take the form that you wanted it to take doesn't mean that it's not a topical argument.

Here's where debating on DDO is fundamentally different from debating in real life. In a lot of real life debates, the topic is given to you and both debaters debate it. Most debates on DDO are topics that the instigator wants to debate. There are exceptions on both sides but for the most part, they follow this mold. So, there is a pretty big difference between being told to debate animal rights IRL and you deciding to use a Kritik (which is why real life judges to weigh Kritik's in) and an instigator on DDO wanting to debate animal rights and you accepting their debate and derailing it with a Kritik (which is why I take a dim view of people who derail the debate into something it wasn't meant to be). For instance, if someone wants to debate Animal Rights and you turn it into say Nihilism, it turns into a philosophical debate that the instigator had no intention of debating. If you don't want to debate animal rights, you have a responsibility to not take that debate and derail it. Let someone else who IS interested in debating the topic do it so both debaters can enjoy a well-fought debate on the topic of their choice.

As a voter, I never default to "Kritiks are always allowed." If a debate says "no Kritiks," then I discount them altogether. If a debate explicitly allows Kritiks, then I weigh them. If nothing is said, I place a pretty high bar on relevancy of the Kritik to the topic and it needs to be very, very relevant for it to count. The example you gave above won't count.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:29:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:24:31 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:11:09 PM, Zaradi wrote:
"It's distracts from the topic."

tl;dr - My bad for attacking points of your argument you didn't want me to attack. Sorry for thinking that this was a debate. Whoopsies.

- Yes and no. Yes in that if we're having an animal rights debate and I'm not explicitly talking about why animal rights are good/bad, one could say I'm "distracting from the topic". But no in that these are things that the cases for/against animal rights are assuming to be true. Last I checked debate was about asking questions and making arguments toward why things we're arguing are wrong...

Moreover, to say that a kritik being raised against you isn't topical raises problematic questions about /your/ case. How a kritik gains relevance in a debate is that it links to either a) the resolution (e.g. rights are what the government uses to control us), or b) to the opponent's case (e.g. my opponent's attempt to reduce suffering ruins human worth). If these links are missing, that's one thing. But if these links are present, whether or not it talks about what you explicitly wanted it to talk about is irrelevant to the fact that it directly pertains to the topic. If I'm arguing that the creation of rights allows for the government to control us against our will, saying that it distracts from an animal rights debate makes literally zero sense because the kritik argues for a reason why the creation of a new right (i.e. animal rights) is a bad thing and we shouldn't do it. Just because it doesn't take the form that you wanted it to take doesn't mean that it's not a topical argument.

Here's where debating on DDO is fundamentally different from debating in real life. In a lot of real life debates, the topic is given to you and both debaters debate it. Most debates on DDO are topics that the instigator wants to debate. There are exceptions on both sides but for the most part, they follow this mold. So, there is a pretty big difference between being told to debate animal rights IRL and you deciding to use a Kritik (which is why real life judges to weigh Kritik's in) and an instigator on DDO wanting to debate animal rights and you accepting their debate and derailing it with a Kritik (which is why I take a dim view of people who derail the debate into something it wasn't meant to be). For instance, if someone wants to debate Animal Rights and you turn it into say Nihilism, it turns into a philosophical debate that the instigator had no intention of debating. If you don't want to debate animal rights, you have a responsibility to not take that debate and derail it. Let someone else who IS interested in debating the topic do it so both debaters can enjoy a well-fought debate on the topic of their choice.

The problem here, like I talked about in my post, is that kritik's aren't not about the topic. Ks, to be relevant in the first place, have to link to the debate/resolution somehow. To say that a kritik about animal rights on an animal rights topic isn't resolution would be like saying advocating for animal rights isn't topical on a resolution of "Society ought to recognize animal rights".

Moreover, it's inherently unfair to say that there are specific points of an argument that debaters aren't allowed to challenge. If the entire point of debating, regardless of where it takes place, is to make and challenge arguments for and against a resolution, outlawing attacking certain parts of an argument makes literally no sense.

As a voter, I never default to "Kritiks are always allowed." If a debate says "no Kritiks," then I discount them altogether. If a debate explicitly allows Kritiks, then I weigh them. If nothing is said, I place a pretty high bar on relevancy of the Kritik to the topic and it needs to be very, very relevant for it to count. The example you gave above won't count.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:30:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.

Send me a challenge to a topic - any topic - and put "No kritik's" as one of the rules then.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:30:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.

Send me a challenge to a topic - any topic - and put "No kritik's" as one of the rules then.

Are you going to pull a kbub?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:31:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:30:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.

Send me a challenge to a topic - any topic - and put "No kritik's" as one of the rules then.

Are you going to pull a kbub?

No, lol.

Well...I forgot the specifics of her argument. Do you still have a link to the debate?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:32:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:31:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:30:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.

Send me a challenge to a topic - any topic - and put "No kritik's" as one of the rules then.

Are you going to pull a kbub?

No, lol.

Well...I forgot the specifics of her argument. Do you still have a link to the debate?

Yup.
http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:34:06 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:32:48 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:31:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:30:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.

Send me a challenge to a topic - any topic - and put "No kritik's" as one of the rules then.

Are you going to pull a kbub?

No, lol.

Well...I forgot the specifics of her argument. Do you still have a link to the debate?

Yup.
http://www.debate.org...

Oh, I was thinking of the old rape battle debate that got deleted.

The argument I'm going to make is a highly improved version of her argument. The way she constructed the argument is p bad.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:43:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:30:17 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:28:53 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:24:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:23:15 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

You're no fun :(

I know, it's epic being boring. :|

It could be worse. I could start running theory in all of my debates instead of Ks >:3

I'll just have to make that against the rules too then in all of my debates, lol.

That doesn't actually stop me from running theory ~_^

I know but then you'd just lose the debate ;)

Wanna bet? ;)

Yep. You know that breaking the rules results in a full forfeiture of points to me.

Send me a challenge to a topic - any topic - and put "No kritik's" as one of the rules then.

http://www.debate.org...

I will send the challenge when I have time.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 7:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:15:55 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 11/4/2015 7:11:35 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Title says it all. What's a "Kritik"? I've head this a lot in debates where the instigator says "No Kritiks" or something. What does that mean?

*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

Yeah, especially with Zaradi. Every debate I want to take him on, I ask him to put rules :p
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 8:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

;)

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

Yeah, especially with Zaradi. Every debate I want to take him on, I ask him to put rules :p

I get why. lol
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 8:11:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*cough Zaradi*

Yep, I learnt that the hard way when I lost an animal rights debate to Zaradi because of a Kritik regarding morality.

At least now I know to put 'No Kritiks' in the rules of the debate.

Yeah, especially with Zaradi. Every debate I want to take him on, I ask him to put rules :p

I get why. lol
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,766
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 8:45:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 7:11:09 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Alright, alright, I'll make my appearance.

Kritiks, modeling the German version of the English word "critique", are cases that challenge assumptions within the resolution or within your opponent's case. There are two kinds of kritiks -- pre-fiat Ks and post-fiat Ks.

Pre-fiat Ks talk about the ways that your opponent approaches answering the resolutional question and how they're either wrong, harmful, or lead to something that is wrong/harmful. For example, if I were to argue that we should give animals rights because it reduces animal suffering, a pre-fiat kritik of this position would be that trying to reduce suffering is a bad thing, and that we shouldn't be looking to reduce suffering, this would be a pre-fiat K on the topic.

Post-fiat Ks, as opposed to pre-fiat Ks, talk about the results of affirming and how they would lead to disastrous results. For example, if we stay with the animal rights topic, a post-fiat K could argue that establishing new rights serves as a proxy for the government to assert more totalitarian control over us, which could lead to a lot of disastrous harms to our humanity and value to living.

To answer a lot of the things that are commonly said toward why kritiks are bad:

"It's distracts from the topic."

tl;dr - My bad for attacking points of your argument you didn't want me to attack. Sorry for thinking that this was a debate. Whoopsies.

- Yes and no. Yes in that if we're having an animal rights debate and I'm not explicitly talking about why animal rights are good/bad, one could say I'm "distracting from the topic". But no in that these are things that the cases for/against animal rights are assuming to be true. Last I checked debate was about asking questions and making arguments toward why things we're arguing are wrong...

Moreover, to say that a kritik being raised against you isn't topical raises problematic questions about /your/ case. How a kritik gains relevance in a debate is that it links to either a) the resolution (e.g. rights are what the government uses to control us), or b) to the opponent's case (e.g. my opponent's attempt to reduce suffering ruins human worth). If these links are missing, that's one thing. But if these links are present, whether or not it talks about what you explicitly wanted it to talk about is irrelevant to the fact that it directly pertains to the topic. If I'm arguing that the creation of rights allows for the government to control us against our will, saying that it distracts from an animal rights debate makes literally zero sense because the kritik argues for a reason why the creation of a new right (i.e. animal rights) is a bad thing and we shouldn't do it. Just because it doesn't take the form that you wanted it to take doesn't mean that it's not a topical argument.

I agree 100% with everything up to this point.

"They're confusing/unclear."

This is where I disagree with a few things you said (and with the way you run Ks):

It's natural for kritikal literature to get a little dense. You can't really talk about how the Western view of epistemology strangles the life from any conception of autonomy from a sense of the human self without losing a few people.

It's not "natural" for the literature to get dense. There's a reason Derrida or Delueze write the way they do (and for the record, I love the way both of them write) -- they're both creating rhetorical effects that perform their arguments. Derrida's language intentionally obfuscates meaning because his whole point is that language always creates a gap in meaning. His language isn't dense. It's a rhetorical effect that performs his argument. Similarly, Deleuze argues that meaning is always immanent, multiple, overdetermined, and schizophrenic, so his language reads like poetry, amplifying meanings rather than closing them down.

There's nothing inherent about "kritical literature" that makes it dense. It's doing important rhetorical things. But when you cite quotes out-of-context, you not only lose those important rhetorical effects, you lose the entire meaning of the argument these guys are making.

When academics write about "kritical literature," they'll spend pages writing about a single line, explaining what the line means, and how it operates in the context of the philosopher's entire oeuvre. That's why quoting "kritical literature" out-of-context, without sufficient explanation, isn't appropriate in a debate.

The way to run a K is to write the arguments yourself. If you're using Derrida, cite him, but don't quote him. Explain the argument clearly. There's no need to obfuscate meaning in a debate. It only hurts your argument. And the idea that these ideas can't be explained clearly is bullsh!t. All ideas, concepts, arguments, no matter how complex, can be put into plain English.

I think Ks get a bad rap precisely because folks who run them say it's not their fault the kritical literature is dense, when (a) the literature isn't dense, it's doing specific rhetorical things that you can only appreciate in the full context of the literature, and (b) it doesn't need to be "dense," as even the most complex arguments can be articulated with uncomplicated, plain language.