i dont think you should say critiques are only spelled kritik. although that may be common in high school debate it is not standard among college debaters, nor those in highschool who focus on critical arguments.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I doubt it (went over the page a few times). The Kritik is sort of unique in debate arguments in that it often, and is the only position to do so, claims real-world implications. Things like, "We've raised this important issue to you, and by voting Negative here you take a stand to support our advocacy" or "Our dialogue has the potential to snow-ball into real world change; even if the Affirmative wins the round it doesn't change anything." This is similar to other claims raised in the implications section, but I don't think it's totally the same. Anusien (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
real-world impacts mean in-round impacts. For example, the changing of a mindset, or the planting of an idea. Verses the impacts that are generally claimed to DAs, CPs, Ks, etc. For example, low civil-military relations leads to a decrease in recruitment and readiness, and since readiness is key to sustaining US hegemony, and since US hegemony is the only thing stoping a nuclear exchange in Southeast Asia, and since any nuclear proliferation, or hot conflict in Southeast Asia will escalate globally, and since any global nuclear exchange will lead to total human extinction, it follows that Civil-military relations are key to prevent human extinction. So that is the difference between real-world impacts (the first example) and non-real-world impacts (the second example) i personally am a K debater, so i really love running crazy reverse stuff, like Nietzsche, Malthus, and Zizek (all philosophers) and a lot of those kinds of kritiks have no real-world impacts, so to say that kritiks are generally more real-world is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems only to be a term in use in the US. Ozdaren 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
cite for shannahan founding the k? that's a big deal. 188.8.131.52 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
definitely needs citation although this will be hard to find. it's certainly not the case that FHSU innovated the k, since bill didnt even work there till the mid-90s. it's also probably wrong to say that anyone "invented" it-- but if any single figure should be pointed to, it's bill.184.108.40.206 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about the photo for Policy Debate on this page. It looks like some guys in a park with a recycling bin. What does that have to do with policy debate? FoiledAgain 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That recycling bin is called an "evidence tub", which is used to hold debate evidence in the form of cards. The park, I believe, is part of the grounds at the St. Marks school in Texas, which hosts a yearly debate tournament. 220.127.116.11 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Our common kritik authors dont include any women. Are there really none that are used heavily enough to be worth including. Arendt? Butler? Its a little disconcerting that I'm not sure I can think of one off the top of my head whose use is wide spread enough in debate to be applicable on this list.Netbenefit 05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Kritikal = kritisch?
"and takes the adjective form kritikal (meaning and pronounced as `critical`)." (ll.3f)
"Bill Shanahan and his good friend Mr. Stafford "shane stafford" created the anarchism CP that at the end had a vote neg on ontology and this started labor movements leading to an existing "single-citizen" argumentation paradigm which called for the judge to vote a single citizen's conscience rather than adopting the role of the federal government." What? This makes no sense at all. --AW (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- As not at all the original author, it made sense to me though it could certainly be clearer. Claim 1 would seem to be '(authors) created a CP which had a critical voting paradigm', which (claim 2) 'led to a specific (critical) argumentation paradigm'. I don't know what the labor movement bit is supposed to mean, but those two claims seem to be intended to be a description of the origin of Kritiks in Policy Debate, both of which do reject (then) prevailing debate paradigms to ask the judge to vote in a particular way based on critical argumentation. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Basically what it means is that someone had someone else create a counter plan that was either anti-anarchism, or pro-anarchism (I'm not positive which, because some counter plans (CP) and kritiks (K) are reverse named. like my feminism international relations kritik (Fem IR K) which is really a critique of patriarchy) but guessing from the word "ontology" i would guess that it is pro-anarchism. (Pro-anarchism is actually really popular because they're just so much fun to argue) Then the the part that says "at the end had a vote neg on ontology and this started labor movements leading to an existing "single-citizen" argumentation paradigm which called for the judge to vote a single citizen's conscience rather than adopting the role of the federal government." means that the judge of the round gave the win to the negative side (the side that ran/used the CP) because of a framework (framework is the way that one team (in this case the negative/neg) tells the judge he/she should evaluate the round) that said that the judge should look to the impacts on the rights/state of being of the individule instead of the rights/state of being of the masses. (rights of masses the neg would probably argue is buying into the idea of utilitarianism, which can justify horrible things like the Holocaust.) Don't stress if this is confusing. policy is a different language, and for the most part, if you haven't competed in it, it's hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)