You are getting ready to debate the octofinal round at a large regional tournament. You won the coin toss and choose to go affirmative, having run a winning case all year in which you feel very confident. You and your partner are perched outside the room where the mayhem will occur, talking to your coach, who judged your opponents in prelims. "They went for the disadvantage in the 2NR," she says. "No problem!" you announce, half-laughing, as you whip out your generic disadvantage frontline and strut into the room.

It is important to note that kritiks are a form of argument that isn't static or easily lumpable. Brian Lain noted this in last year's DRG by presenting the spectre of a coach advising a team to run "The Disadvantage."1 Just as it would be ridiculous to pull out a "disadvantage frontline" after the INC presents the first off-case position, generic kritik frontlines have rapidly become obsolete. It's time that people begin to understand that there are different forms of kritiks that function in different ways. In the DRG's first kritik symposium, William Shanahan divided kritiks into three categories: language, value, and thinking, while leaving room for further types of the argument.2 But beyond that simple division, it is important to understand how the specific kritik you are facing functions within the round. Teams should seek to recognize the interaction of the kritik with their case, so that they might understand what both sides are advocating at the end of the round, and aren't simply swept away in a flurry of rhetoric that insists the laity has value while their plan does not.

Although the spectacle of generic disadvantage frontlines would make most of us laugh, many affirmative answers to kritiks unfortunately haven't developed past this primitive stage. While the debate community's understanding of kritiks has seemingly advanced since the first symposium on kritiks in debate, published in these pages in 1993, it has also remained stagnant in many ways. The advocates of kritiks have developed the theory and practice of the argument, many of its opponents are still reading the same frontlines that they wrote five years ago. Individuals who are privy to Listserv discussions on the internet will witness frustration on both sides of the issue, as kritik opponents cling to the precious "wrong forum" answers that seem to have vanished from the affirmative arsenal, while its advocates bemoan the vagueness of many affirmative responses, such as vacuous permutations and poorly articulated turns.

We seek to clarify a number of affirmative answers to kritiks, while offering advice to those who will be defending against them. We believe that much of the confusion and frustration associated with kritiks stems from a lack of understanding by teams who seek to answer them. While some would argue that most of the common affirmative answers to kritiks are "inherently flawed," it is our opinion that the problem lies with affirmative teams who fail to properly develop the arguments they are making.

A Starting Point for the Affirmative

As with all arguments, the best way to learn how to answer kritiks is by running them. One of the greatest disservices you can do to yourself as a debater is to wall yourself off from all of the arguments that you are unfamiliar with. Ridiculing the kritik will contribute to intellectual stagnation while engaging in it on occasion can be an instructive experience. Just as a team who never ran disadvantages would be dumb-founded by a Clinton popularity position, it is much more difficult to understand what the most powerful kritik answers are if one refuses to engage in them on the negative. When you run kritik on the negative, you get a good idea of what affirmative arguments are the most difficult to deal with, and which ones can be blown off. Running kritiks will give you an idea of what others say against them, allowing you to pick and choose from a wider arsenal of argumentation in constructing your own frontlines.

It is also important to be well-versed in the literature, or at least to know the evidence that you have to answer kritiks. As a high school student this can be difficult given that philosophy courses are not typically offered as standard curriculum. Therefore, we recommend independent reading as a means to achieve a requisite level of understanding of basic philosophical issues. With some depth of knowledge you'll be able to recognize what variety of kritiks your evidence will answer. For instance, you may have prepared to answer a kritik written from the perspective of deep ecology. The negative team may instead run an argument that proposes an environmental ethic that isn't based in deep ecology, but instead questions the separation between humans and nature. You should be ready to argue why a mindset change of this variety is unlikely to succeed and why your plan is consistent with an environmental ethic. These arguments would apply to both kritiks equally well. However, all of your fancy impact turns to deep ecology have suddenly become irrelevant and will be a waste of your time. As with any category of argument in debate, understanding the issues and knowing your own evidence can make the difference between winning and losing,

Cross-examination

Most proponents of kritiks, when explaining how to effectively answer them, will say that it's important to have read the sources from which they're derived. However, often you will not have had a chance to read the sources, or somebody will run a kritik that you haven't heard before, or attempt a new spin on an old kritik. This is where the cross examination is important as well, because if the negative has run their old kritik with a twist, it is entirely possible for the 2AC to spew out the old frontline without bringing to light the new distinctions that the negative is attempting to draw. This gives the negative an opportunity to make these distinctions very apparent later in the debate.

It is important to utilize the cross-examination of the 1NC to pin down what the specific links to the kritik are and how it functions within the debate. Often teams are so angry that the negative has dared to run a kritik that they fail to make any cogent arguments, and spend the cross-ex fuming without asking any pertinent questions or attempting to understand what their opponents are saying. Or else the affirmative team will assume that the negative isn't going to extend this argument, and make some weak link presses instead of concentrating on a position that fundamentally calls into question the entire 1AC.

Often, kritik authors make an assortment of diffuse arguments that aren't explicit in the 1NC shell. The negative team may feel that many of these arguments are implicit when they first present the kritik, and if you fail to answer some arguments that may not seem very significant in the INC, the negative always has the opportunity to blow them up and make it appear that the kritik was mishandled. However, cross-examination periods are almost universally binding, and if you understand the main thrust of the kritik before giving the 2AC, you should be able to guard against this kind of a negative strategy.

One must understand a few important aspects of the kritik before giving the 2AC. It is important to understand why the kritik is a reason to reject the affirmative plan. If you can isolate the portion of the plan that the kritik asks the judge to reject, you can present add-on advantages that have nothing to do with the assumption that the negative is indicting. For example, assume the advantage in your 1AC is to reduce global warming and the negative argues that scientific methodology is flawed so it's indeterminate whether these harms actually exist. You may wonder initially why this isn't just some fancy harms press, which is a good question. But beyond that, you could run advantages in the 2AC claiming that you reduce US dependency on foreign oil and thus prevent us from getting sucked into wars- overseas. The evidence from Richard North (F44*) makes this very point, in listing other benefits that the plan's action would accrue that don't need to be justified solely on the premise that the Earth is getting hotter.

You should ask if the kritik is linked to the action mandated by the plan, or something beyond the plan that the negative thinks you should be forced to defend, like words that you've used or the implicit assumptions that your authors hold. If you don't know what they're attacking, then you have no hope of disproving the negative's link story. If you don't realize that the kritik is linked off an advantage and not the plan itself, then you probably won't be able to point out that you don't have to defend that advantage, or that the benefits of your other advantage outweigh a few flawed assumptions. You should get an idea of what assumptions you have to defend in order to win the debate, and why the assumptions that the negative claims you're making, are bad.

Permutations

What does the affirmative mean when they utter the word "permute" to answer a kritik? The term "permutation" has been adopted from counterplan debates to mean that the affirmative plan and the framework or value of the kritik can be adopted simultaneously, demonstrating that the kritik is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan. This seems appropriate given that kritiks present an alternate framework much like counterplans present an alternate policy option. If the alternate framework presented by the negative does not compete with the affirmative advocacy (operationalized by the plan presented in the IAC) then the kritik is not a germane argument and therefore not a reason to vote negative.

The most common permutation is to implement the affirmative plan while rethinking, or accepting the value of the kritik. One of the requirements of a permutation to a counterplan is that the permutation be net beneficial, and one may wonder how a kritik permutation can be net beneficial when the kritik maintains some link to the affirmative plan. But what happens to the affirmative plan once a kritik is run? Is the rethinking of the kritik somehow "real" while the affirmative advantages are utopian? It is important to remember that the case advantage doesn't magically disappear.

When somebody proposes that statist action is bad, what does that mean? Obviously, the negative doesn't think that after the judge votes for them no more statist action will occur. If the affirmative advantage is tangible and can only be achieved immediately through the mechanism that they propose there may still be some reason to implement the plan despite the fact that statist action is oppressive. In essence, this argument is that the benefit to accepting both the plan and the kritik is the best option, in that the advantage that can only be accrued by implementing the plan outweighs the marginal entrenchment of the state that occurs through simultaneously doing the plan at the same time the reconceptualization occurs.

Andrew Light (F36) argues that we can search for answers to framework questions in private while publicly endorsing the best policy option. He argues from the perspective of one who publishes frequently in journals of environmental ethics, and sees many people entirely eschewing systemic action while in search of a proper framework. But why should we allow environmental destruction to continue during the process of transition? This would be like refusing to study for a final exam you have tomorrow until you can come up with a lifelong framework to gather and analyze knowledge. You'll certainly fail the final, even if you eventually stumble upon the optimal knowledge-seeking framework. The permutation is net beneficial because the judge can vote to attempt to solve the affirmative harm now, even while attempting to move toward the trump value that the negative presents.

Light (F37) also argues that action isn't a stopping point. We can act through the state now because there is some urgency to act. But simply because we've acted doesn't mean we cannot think, and doesn't mean that we can't act through the state in instance X, while simultaneously attempting to decrease the state's power. There is no forced choice. You can accept the claim that the state is net bad while recognizing that in the present context the state is a necessary means to the affirmative advantage. The question need not be either/or it can be both/and.

The permutation to do both has come under attack recently. David Breshears of the University of North Texas writes, "Most of the arguments I call 'kritiks' (or, as Shanahan has suggested, let's "verb" the term-"kritiking") call into question FUNDAMENTAL assumptions of the affirmative (ontological/epistemological objections). I constantly hear teams 'perm' these arguments, but have NO IDEA how this is conceptually done. It's usually passed off as something asinine, like 'We'll recognize the flawed assumptions and do the plan with that thought in mind'."3

The permutation to do both is not a magic bullet to be fired mindlessly. In his post Breshears referred to a kritik based on Heidegger's writings, which indicts "the fundamental way in which the affirmative frames the debate, throwing into question dualistic ontologies, a mechanistic view of nature, and humans which reduces both to a 'standing reserve', and a reformist agenda more concerned with plugging the leaks in the dike than examining the underlying structural flaws which make its collapse inevitable." Given this specific example, it is necessary for the affirmative to tailor the permutation to the specific kritik you are dealing with. Part of the kritik can be easily permuted away by the argument we discussed above simply because your plan is a reform doesn't mean you can't also accept a holistic program to solve the environment, and move toward that even while you act to solve your specific harms.

After that it's imperative to question what the kritik is really saying. Why are the assumptions that the negative says you make fundamental to your case? A plan to reduce C02 isn't necessarily linked to any ontological or epistemological assumptions. The negative cannot tell you what system of logic you use. The kritik Breshears refers to indicts the technological mindset, but that doesn't necessarily entail a rejection of the plan. In The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger says that recognizing one's relationship to technology is sufficient to unconceal the rule of technology (technology meaning the technological mindset that the kritik attacks, not technology as represented by computers and televisions). Heideager explicitly says that technology will not be done away with, but that "Being will reveal itself in the very ongoing of technology." One could create a fairly persuasive permutation based on recognizing our relationship to technology and implementing, the affirmative plan bearing in mind its dangers, while arguing that unconcealment is sufficient to solve for the problems that the kritik poses.

Breshears posits a second hurdle that the permutation must cross. He points out that "any permutation would be [... ] a severance perm. Why should we allow the affirmative to sever out of the advocacy of the 1AC? Anyone got an argument as to why ADVOCACY is irrelevant in this activity?" Our argument is that the permutation we outlined would not jettison any of the IAC assumptions. It simply specifies an alternative path of reaching the IAC's conclusion without taking the route that the negative says you do. It could be viewed as an "alternative framework" permutation. The negative says that you necessarily view the debate through X framework, which is bad. The affirmative argues that they actually view the debate through Y framework, which escapes the bad impacts that the negative talks about while solving the problem that the IAC outlines.

A legitimate permutation to a counterplan consists of the entire plan plus part or all of the counterplan. By the standards that kritikers attempt to impose, it would be illegitimate to permute a states counterplan to solve for its federalism net benefit because the initial assumption of the plan is that the federal government should act, which is antithetical to state action. There are some assumptions that the affirmative should be able to jettison. Affirmative teams are able to kick out of advantages, and negatives can abandon disadvantages without anybody crying "Advocacy shift!" Part of your methodology may be based on flawed scientific models. You can recognize that, admit that you were wrong and win the I AC advantage based on a non-scientific justification. Some kritiks are offensive arguments. If so, you can't simply kick out of your old advantages, because they've been turned. If, however, the implication of the kritik only problematizes your assumptions, then you may abandon the flawed claims and win on other benefits of your plan that the kritik does not indict.

Furthermore, the negative appeal to an advocacy paradigm is problematic. Often the kritik will be presented along with other arguments which are inconsistent with the kritik's value. For instance, the negative may urge rejection of statist action while arguing that Clinton needs to maintain popularity to get his agenda passed. The contradictions in their INC positions seems to legitimize conditionality of assumptions. Negative teams usually respond to the contradiction argument in one of two ways. They may say that their only obligation is to negate, in which case their appeal to advocacy seems misplaced since they are not advocating anything. Or they could argue the debate through a theoretical window, that they primarily endorse a rejection of the affirmative framework, but if that framework is correct then the affirmative plan is still bad within its own hypothetical world. If this is the case, it creates a huge inequity - the negative is allowed to argue in two conflicting worlds simultaneously while the affirmative is forced to defend every word they uttered throughout the whole round.

Pragmatism: An Alternative

Pragmatism is a branch of American philosophy most heavily influenced by John Dewey and William James. It seeks the most practical approach to problem-solving. Dewey believed that in most situations we can act as we have in the past, but sometimes we stumble upon situations that call for new responses, which require intelligence to overcome obstacles. This particular view of pragmatism was known as instrumentalism.

In Environmental Pragmatism, edited by Andrew Light, a number of prominent environmental ethicists who were fed up with the direction much of the debate in environmental philosophy journals was going, called for a more pragmatic approach to dealing with ecological problems. While they didn't oppose efforts to establish an overarching framework for dealing with environmental problems, they felt that this grail quest to oppose all but the most comprehensive solution to the environmental crisis prevented writers from supporting policies that could reap quite tangible benefits. They were most critical of abstractions that needlessly criticized attempts to solve environmental problems without any tangible benefit from the criticism. For example, many ethicists criticize those who assume that nature has only instrumental value, or should be used as a resource for humankind. They insist that nature should be viewed as having intrinsic value, or as an end in itself. This seems to be a ridiculous basis to oppose a policy, because whether one believes that nature has intrinsic or instrumental value, the effect of the proposed policy is the same: protection of nature. Furthermore, it seems pretty intuitive that nature can have both intrinsic and instrumental value (F100-1).

Similar to the kritik that indicts your view that nature possesses instrumental value, you may face an argument that claims the ecological crisis should be solved from outside the system. It is hard to determine why the affirmative believes that statist action is the only route we can ever take. Simply because your plan works through the state doesn't mean that you assume the state is the only actor that can ever solve the ecological crisis, and it doesn't mean that you assume the state is good. Even the most radical anti-systemic ecologists turn to the state occasionally when there is a pressing need. The affirmative case proves the pressing need. Given that there is no way to solve the harms presented simply by "rethinking" or wishing the state away, we should take action or else consign many people to death or lives of misery. Environmental pragmatism proposes that we take this approach, acting in the manner that is most appropriate to solve a specific problem.

Often kritiks will indict more than just the affirmative plan. The negative will point to historical evils that the state has committed unrelated to the action mandated by the plan. Why should you be responsible for every drop of blood spilled by a system that you didn't create? Light argues that you should implement the plan that is best to solve a specific problem, while recognizing that your framework is not infallible (F41). Because no system of thought can be appropriate to solve every problem that we encounter in our lives, all frameworks will fail in some specific instance, and you can recognize that. All you are forced to defend is your specific plan. If your mode of thought causes some evils in another context, that is interesting but irrelevant. The sum total of the negative's arguments at that point is that even though your plan is good, there could be a world in which it is bad. Assume that the affirmative plan results in hiding Jews from the Brownshirts in Nazi Germany. What happens when the Gestapo comes knocking on your door asking if you're holding any Jews there? The negative kritik is based on Kant's categorical imperative, that all actions we take should be universalizable without contradiction. If you were to follow the principles Kant established, you wouldn't lie because if the action of lying were to be universalized there could be no lies, since there would then be no such thing as the truth. The categorical imperative wouldn't allow you to lie, and prevent a number of individuals from getting carted away to a concentration camp. Following an abstract philosophy in this specific context would be unnecessarily legalistic, and pretty cruel, to say the least. Even if in general it is more desirable to follow the categorical imperative, in this instance you should most likely lie. This demonstrates that any policy can be criticized by some framework that might be superior in the abstract, but your specific context should guide the action you take.

Pragmatism applies also if the negative kritik indicts the system of logic you utilize to reach your conclusions in presenting the 1AC, such as science or rationality. If your logic really is flawed, then your case won't solve the problem it attempts to tackle. But what is the benefit to rejecting the affirmative logic in light of the harms you've presented? A persuasive permutation could implement the affirmative plan while bearing in mind the negative arguments, and carefully evaluating the results of the plan. The institutions that implement the plan can "muddle through," attempting to learn from their mistakes and using them as a springboard for achieving a more ideal framework (F45). If it seems that this isn't the ideal way to establish a sound framework, remember that most of what we know comes from experience. It is just as likely that somebody trying to discover a meta-structure for dealing with the environment through textual analysis will meet with failure as it is that the approach we've been using to solve environmental harms for the whole century and longer won't succeed.

Impact Turns

Impact turns, defined as arguments which claim the alternative advocated by the negative is bad, have been underutilized against kritiks. The dilemma an affirmative team encounters when attempting to impact turn the kritik is that kritiks often seek to negate without advocating an alternative. This can be seen in Brian Lain's article. He discusses a hypothetical permutation to a statism kritik, which abolishes all government except for those portions necessary to carry out the plan. Lain asks, "Is the criticism really just an endorsement of anarchy? Is it impossible to conceive of something non-anarchical and non-statist at the same time? Why anarchy? Why not tribalism? Why not primitivism?"4

Although in context Lain is discussing intrinsicness permutations, his analysis can easily be applied to a situation where the affirmative seeks to impact turn a statism kritik by arguing that anarchy is bad. The negative team, upon hearing the "anarchy bad" turns, can argue that anarchy isn't the only alternative to the state. Tribalism is another alternative. So the affirmative proves that tribalism is a bad idea, and by the time the negative points out that primitivism is another possibility, we've already reached the 2NR. This example demonstrates the problem of allowing the negative solely to negate without proposing an alternative.

A good cross-examination is crucial to establishing your ground for questioning the kritik's implication. Given our example of the statism kritik, one would need to ask the negative what the alternative to the state is. If they explicitly state an alternative, then you have ground to run impact n= to demonstrate the harms resulting from the alternate framework advocated by the negative. If they won't tell what their alternative is, you can ask what will happen if you argue that the state's demise is bad. Obviously, the negative will be hard pressed to advocate the rejection of the state on principle while simultaneously refusing to defend the likely alternative to state action. Distinctions made by the negative to avoid having to defend a world without the state, such as the claim that "we are only advocating against the affirmative, which does not necessarily imply any alternative," are often semantic games that break down when scrutinized. You can negotiate your ground by forcing the negative to explain exactly what it is that they are defending. If their alternative is merely to question your framework, their lack of a concrete alternative will feed your permutation by demonstrating that the affirmative plan is likely to be compatible with this unknown and undescribed framework. Furthermore, if the rethinking advocated by the negative is so long-term and abstract that its result is indeterminate, then one plan that is inconsistent with the kritik's value won't stop a transition to a better world. This argument can be further developed with the Light evidence stating (F40) that we need open-ended inquiry. If the kritik doesn't propose any concrete solution, then the affirmative plan is consistent with this inquiry. The state is not going to wither away any time soon, and while we wait for a framework to replace the state we can act pragmatically.

Some kritiks cannot skirt potential impact turns. For instance, any kritik that calls for a fundamental transformation of society will fall prey to the argument that elites will backlash prior to any mindset shift, destroying the world in the interim (F91). Without a successful transition, it would probably be preferable to attempt to reform the system. Likewise, kritiks that argue for the rejection of technology or scientific thought infer that we should move toward a simpler way of life. One can argue this would be bad in our present context, because with all the Earth's billions of people, a sudden transition to a more primitive state would cause worldwide starvation (F70-1), massive disease (F72), and disempower women (F73-4). It is important to be cognizant of what the kritik proposes, and what its implicit alternative necessarily entails. While some of the impact turns to kritiks may seem exaggerated upon first glance, keep in mind that the value change advocated by the negative is frequently a massive and abrupt shift in the way humans see themselves and others. To argue that attempts at such enormous and systemic change have never brought about harms which outweighed their benefits would be to ignore the historical record and the logic of stable incremental change. It is helpful to contemplate what the world would be like if the value or framework change advocated by the negative were truly initiated. Despite the flaws of the present system, the picture that emerges from careful consideration of the kritik is often one of a world more incoherent and less orderly than the status quo.

Sometimes the negative will attempt to dodge the impact turn debate by arguing that the shift they are advocating is merely a local one which can sidestep the potential harms of mass consciousness shift. Similarly, the negative may argue that they are only advocating a "rethinking" which involves nothing more that contemplating a given aspect of the foundation upon which the affirmative's plan rests. In these instances, the affirmative should make several arguments which call into question the notion of in-round advocacy and the nature of rethinking which results from voting negative on a kritik. First, the affirmative should indict contemplation and the potential harms which result from inaction. Second, the affirmative can attempt to demonstrate that the contemplation urged by the negative has already occurred. If the negative is simply arguing that we need to think more about a certain issue, the affirmative can present a compelling argument that they have already undertaken the prescribed re g and that little good would come from re-consideration. Finally, if the negative is arguing that the judge should decide to vote for them in order to endorse a localized change, then it is hypocritical for the judge to vote for a rethinking which they are not really prepared to undertake. Nothing is gained if the negative successfully convinces the judge to rethink (for example, the Heidegger kritik often urges the judge to contemplate "being" in order to reject the technological mindset, consistent with Heidegger's philosophy) when in reality the judge signs the ballot and moves on to the next debate without regard for the consciousness shift she has just endorsed. The point is not to rule out the possibility of ontological or epistemological change that can occur through debate, rather, it is to make clear that there is little value in pretending to endorse a given value when in reality one does not. In this sense, the distinction between the kritik and other arguments in the debate is critical because the kritik, in this instance, is asking the judge to actually change the way she thinks while the plan or disadvantage is not presented under such a pretense.

If you can successfully problematize the alternative, then you can probably win the debate by arguing that we should continue to search for an alternative to the present system that won't destroy our quality of life in the process, and meanwhile we should take Light's advice to act to alleviate immediate suffering. While the negative will always argue that their alternative or value is the best lens through which to see the world, it is the job of the affirmative to point out that no framework is perfect and that flaws of the current framework pale in comparison to the problems likely to arise from the transition advocated by the negative.

Weighing the Plan Against the Kritik

Throughout the debate, and especially in the rebuttals, it is important to weigh the plan against the kritik. One of the most mishandled aspects of the kritik is the 15-second impact analysis that the INC blurts out at some point in the shell, saying something to the effect of, "Fiat is utopian, the affirmative plan will never really be passed but the kritik has a real-world impact because it allows us to question our assumptions."

There is no reason that this must be the case. It is the job of the affirmative to clarify the concept of fiat in order to determine the scope of the various arguments presented in the debate. The affirmative should attempt to answer the question: What does the judge realistically accomplish by voting for the kritik? If endorsing the plan doesn't get us anywhere, then neither does endorsing the kritik, because the judge can't really change the minds of the policymakers who allow the evils of the status quo value system to permeate every policy. If the kritik serves as enlightenment then the plan can just as easily serve to enlighten, albeit on a different, though no less important, subject. If, by re-evaluating our assumptions of rationality or the state, we can somehow have a positive effect on the world, then we can just as easily have a positive impact by re-evaluating the current policies of the U.S. government toward renewable energy. It is just as likely that debaters could become advocates for tradable permits through the knowledge they garner from debate as it is that they could become advocates for deep ecology.

This is not to say that you should be able to beat a kritik by proving it has no real world impact. We are simply stressing the importance of answering the implications of the argument and proving that there is no logical reason why the kritik should be important at the end of the debate and the case shouldn't. Even if it is true that "flat is utopian and the affirmative plan will never really be passed," this does not demonstrate a reason to discount the affirmative case. Obviously, fiat is not real and any debater who thinks that their plan actually gets passed if the judge votes affirmative needs to check-in to reality. The affirmative presents their plan arguing that it would be a good idea if it were adopted in much the same way that the negative presents their kritik. Lain advocates fiating kritiks, perhaps to make them just as real as the affirmative plan. For instance, he asks, "Why not then have the judge endorse the kritiking option on the governing body? Have the judge force Congress to rethink."5 This unnecessarily makes the perfect the enemy of the good in the sense that it presents a utopian vision as a reason to reject a pragmatically useful policy. There are some kritiks that would be impossible to fiat upon a governing body. For example, how can the government force deep ecology or social ecology? Would they pass a law stating that everyone holding elected office must pass a social ecology examination in order to become a certified social ecologist? I thought the links to these kritik claimed that governmental action is inconsistent with any sort of environmental ethic. If the negative claims that governmental action is necessarily inconsistent with an ethic, then they are in a quandary. Either they cannot impose an ethic onto the government, or else the affirmative plan in combination with the dynamic process of rethinking that the negative suggests will solve for any residual link to the kritik.

Does fiating kritiking mean that all of society will eventually change their minds? If so, then how is this anywhere near equitable? This would legitimize abusive and irrelevant kritik. For instance, an affirmative that proposes stricter laws preventing hate crimes could fall prey to a kritik that the plan assumes the existence of racism, but there shouldn't be racism. Or else an affirmative plan that deals with the clean-up of nuclear waste would be kritiked because there shouldn't be nuclear power in the first place. All these ignore the context of our present situation. If a problem exists, you cannot simply wish it away. To allow the negative to magically repair all the evils in the world would make most affirmative plans suddenly irrelevant. In reality, no matter how powerful ethical arguments are, they usually do not impact on the majority of individuals, as Light argues (F46) when he explains that even a consensus of environmental ethicists has failed to impact actual environmental policy.

An alternative way to conceptualize kritiks is as ongoing conversations. On this topic, they would be the sort of arguments that are presented in journals of environmental ethics. How do the arguments in these journals intersect with journals that prescribe policy action? Most often, they do not. However, for the purposes of the debate that you intend to win, it's important to conceptualize how the arguments interact.

If you are arguing that pragmatism is the best philosophical option, then all you really have to defeat is the negative's monolithic application of an ethical theory. Light argues (F49) that an application of ethical theories freezes the environmental debate. Instead of evaluating a policy on its own merits, policies are instead evaluated on the basis of applied theories that may not even be relevant to the problem at hand. For example, a negative team may apply Kant's categorical imperative to a C02 tradable permits case and argue that the plan should be rejected on face because all pollution is immoral and the affirmative allows some "acceptable" level to continue. Yet if no permits are put in place, then corporations have an unlimited license to continue pumping out all the pollutants they choose. By blindly applying an ethical theory the negative allows the harm to continue, somehow believing that no action at all is better than a solution that doesn't dispense of C02 entirely, never mind the fact that the only way to be rid of that pollutant is through deindustrialization. This is what Texas A & M philosophy professor Paul Thompson (F51) describes when he says that if ethical theories serve to "moralize a debate and preclude political action, they are worse than useless, for if political action does not address our environmental issues, how are they to be addressed at all?"

It is important to be mindful of kritiks and not simply assume that the judge will ignore them because you don't consider them a legitimate form of argument. Likewise, one shouldn't get sucked into the kritiker's game and believe that philosophical thought has value while the affirmative policy does not. Rather than claiming that the negative is "playing the wrong game," the successful affirmative will attempt to demonstrate the intersection between the world of the plan and the world of the kritik. Instead of blindly discounting the arguments made by various kritiks, it is the affirmative's job to articulate a reason to vote for the plan in light of the more abstract option presented by the negative. Hopefully, a more thorough examination of issues surrounding affirmative answers to kritiks will produce amore thorough and enjoyable kritik discussion for all.

*Note: Throughout the text of this article are alpha-numeric notes (ie, F44). These refer to "evidence" in the Debater's Research Guide in which this article originally appeared.

------------

1 Lain, Brian. "Verb, That's What's Happening: Kritiking Theory and Practice," in Debater's Research Guide: Juvenile Crime. Roger Solt and Ross Smith, Eds. Wake Forest University: Winston-Salem,.1996. p.A-12
2 Shanahan, William. "Kritik of Thinking," in Debater's Research Guide: Health Care Policy: Debating Coverage Cures. Roger Solt and Ross Smith, Eds. Wake Forest University: Winston-Salem. 1993. P.A-4.
3 David Breshears, "Question About Kritik Perms." Post to the NDT Listserv, April 14, 1997.
4 Lain, p. A-15.
5 Lain, p. A-14.