Kritiks

John Fritch jef229f
Fri Apr 28 10:08:13 CDT 2000


I think of it as more like 190 years...when Whately first introduced the
concept of presumption.

I guess I always find irony in the appeal to presumption by critiques that
are calling into question aspects of modernism.  It seems to me that
presumption is about as modernist as you can get..."prior occupation of
ground"..."stands until a good reason is adduced against it"...and, best of
all, a reason to support the church.

--
John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: William E Newnam <wnewnam at EMORY.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Re: Kritiks
>Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2000, 9:05 PM
>

> There you go, you reactionary you.  Trying to claim presumption for the
> negative again.  Wanna set debate back 30 years, sonny?
>
> bill n
> emory
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, David Breshears wrote:
>
>> perhaps.  maybe overpopulation is the harm and starvation, etc. are the
>> scenarios.  dunno.  but my point is the same:  the affirmative will close by
>> making an appeal to the "harms" of overpopulation (starvation, etc.) and
>> claim (through "try or die" logic) that the negative offer SOME alternative
>> solution.  why doesn't this simply beg the question of the kritik: this
>> demand is tied to a bankrupt assessment of the world, and the "harms" that
>> the affirmative points to are unresolved, if not intensified, by this
>> conservative call to action?  whatever should happen, we know the aff ain't
>> it.  vote neg.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Fritch <jef229f at mail.smsu.edu>
>> To: David Breshears <d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>> <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>> Date: Thursday, April 27, 2000 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kritiks
>>
>>
>> >It seems to me that this doesn't challenge the harm, but the cause of the
>> >harm.
>> >
>> >The reason an alternative is useful is that it helps to identify the
>> >accuracy of that causal claim.
>> >
>> >--
>> >John Fritch
>> >SMS
>> >
>> >----------
>> >>From: David Breshears <d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>
>> >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>> >>Subject: Re: Kritiks
>> >>Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2000, 12:43 PM
>> >>
>> >
>> >> what many of these complaints seem to miss, imho, is the fact that many
>> of
>> >> the better kritikal arguments challenge the HARM outlined by the
>> >> affirmative, making affirmative appeals for a counterplan/advocacy kind
>> of
>> >> moot.  For example, a Marxist kritik of the "population bomb" threat
>> >> suggests that it is over-consumption in the North, rather than
>> >> overpopulation in the South, that causes the supposed "population
>> explosion"
>> >> impacts (starvation, ecological destruction, migration, political
>> >> instability, etc.).  In other words, acting to solve the "population
>> crisis"
>> >> does little more than reinforce patterns of over-consumption in the
>> North,
>> >> scapegoats poor folks in the South for things that are well beyond their
>> >> control (much less their fault), ignores the structural causes (such as
>> the
>> >> flow of transnational capital) in favor of utterly inneffective,
>> >> "feel-good," cosmetic revisions that have ZERO hope of solving.  Explain
>> >> again why I need to advocate an alternative, or the advantage of voting
>> >> Affirmative....
>> >>
>> >> Curious George
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Krueger <mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
>> >> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>> >> Date: Thursday, April 27, 2000 2:34 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Kritiks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Ahhh, if were only this simple.  The past topic brought out the worst in
>> >>>criticisms, and judges seem to buy some pretty whacked out arguments.
>> >>>
>> >>>One of our primary arguments against criticisms is that they cannot
>> >>>engage in simple negation, that criticisms can only be effective if they
>> >>>have some sort of plan of action.  These are all carded arguments from
>> >>>the critical literature (see the Cultural Studies Reader for some
>> >>>articles that talk about that).
>> >>>
>> >>>We talk about the "policy implications" of the criticism, engage in the
>> >>>turns you are talking about, and then voila!  the negative mentions the
>> >>>magic words
>> >>>
>> >>>"that isn't our criticism" or "our plan wouldn't look like that" and "we
>> >>>simply have to prove the -plan- is a bad idea" and judges nod their
>> >>>collective heads and our arguments disappear.
>> >>>
>> >>>Just means that we have to be a hell of alot more effective in getting
>> >>>our arguments across to judges, but right now, since there is no
>> >>>-plan/counterplan- to reject, the utopian ideas result in saying the
>> >>>plan is a bad idea (even if the authors of the criticisms would agree
>> >>>with the plan or last probably would).  So judges don't reject any
>> >>>-plan- or alternative plan or counterplan, just are evaluating the
>> >>>debate on the merits of the plan, and utopia is always a better idea,
>> >>>especially since utopia is never specifically articulated.
>> >>>
>> >>>Ahhh.  Things to work in this summer.
>> >>>
>> >>>krueger
>> >>>
>> >>>paul j skiermont wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Maybe the answer to the fact that kritiks let the negative advocate a
>> >> form
>> >>>> of utopia is to debate the merits of that utopia: a la the way old
>> >> utopian
>> >>>> counterplans were defeated.  The Anarchy, etc. cp's were beaten in
>> large
>> >>>> part because the aff could win that anarchy, world gov., etc. were bad
>> >>>> ideas.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Shouldn't the advocate of a kritik have to defend THEIR assumptions
>> about
>> >>>> the result of a world in whcih their form of thinking was presumed
>> >>>> correct.  For instance, what are the implications of postmodernism if
>> >> that
>> >>>> way of thinking enshrouded all policy-making?  Why can't the aff say
>> that
>> >>>> such a world would result in the collapse of the US economy (assuming
>> >> they
>> >>>> could prove such a thing)?  Sure, this is a results-oriented approach,
>> >> but
>> >>>> shouldn't the neg be accountable for such results when they advocate
>> that
>> >>>> line of thinking?  In this way, most aff's are impact turns to the
>> >> kritik,
>> >>>> because that manner of thinking would reject the aff plan.  Of course,
>> >>>> there would have to be a tallying up of impacts, but it forces the neg
>> to
>> >>>> defend the utopia they advocate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ____________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Paul J. Skiermont
>> >>>> University of Chicago Law School, J.D. 2001
>> >>>> 2 East 8th Street #1313
>> >>>> Chicago, IL 60605
>> >>>> (312) 786-0114
>> >>>> pjskierm at uchicago.edu
>> >>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>Michael Krueger
>> >>>Director of Debate
>> >>>Middle Tennessee State University
>> >>>Box 43
>> >>>Murfreesboro, TN 37132
>> >>>(615) 898-5607 (office)
>> >>>(615) 898-5826 (fax)
>> >>>http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/
>> >>>http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html
>> >>>http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/
>>




More information about the Mailman mailing list