Accepting the Kritik
By J. J. Rodriquez

Running a kritik in Lincoln Douglas debate often seems akin to entering a comfortable conversation uninvited and changing its topic abruptly. When asked to return to the topic at hand you refuse. The old topic was boring and you have something more pressing to say. In day to day dialogue such action is considered rude. You don’t just dismiss others. Fortunately, debate is more than just polite dialogue. Unfortunately, such action is also considered rude by many debaters and educators in LD. The critics of kritiks often prefer the old conversation. Consequently, the kritik has been labeled detrimental to education and contrary to the intent of the activity. Common responses to kritiks are “this is not the appropriate venue,” “if you want to run a kritik join policy debate,” or “why are you here if you believe that.” Such attitudes are eerily similar to the “love it or leave it” mentality faced by the critics of war or majority ideology. Contrarily, Professor Ian Lising, Chair of the World Universities Debating Council, argues that ideally, debate “challenges blind devotion to popular pedagogy.” When ideas become sacred or form takes precedence over the discussion itself, we have ceased to debate. To avoid such critical error, this paper defends the kritik in Lincoln Douglas debate on four contextual levels. First, the kritik is essential to our role in secondary education. Second, the kritik is appropriate to the realm of speech communications, our larger field. Third, debate itself is a critical activity. Finally, the specific context of LD is benefited by allowing critical debate.

One reason the kritik is appropriate to LD is that the form generally has a fixed position in American secondary education. In this venue we at least performatively acknowledge that language can be simultaneously liberating and oppressive. Perhaps most consciously populations are denied or granted access to specific space based on vocabulary. I remember being forced to take the SAT as a child. I didn’t know what the exam was. To me nothing was at stake. It would be years before I understood the FAFSA Form C or created a CV. My entrance into space my parents had denied was rooted not in my desire to be “free,” but in language acquisition and subsequent application. I talk pretty because talking pretty matters in this world. Rather, I have been taught eloquence and other “essential” skills because my teachers believed education is a liberating instrument that when wielded well affords individuals opportunities of their own choosing.

Pedagogically, American educators tend to recognize the power of language. Teacher preparation programs at American universities often claim that sarcasm from a teacher is disempowering. Students do not have “weaknesses.” They have “room for improvement.” We silence children who proclaim “that is so gay” to describe anything of dislike, because many of us know the pain such language can cause another child. We say “there is no such thing as a stupid question” when we know exactly which student is going to ask one. The role of educator is often that of censor. The object of censorship is often oneself. Like any performer, we craft our language to our audience, but at times we stop to discuss a word, an assumption, or an action that must be dealt with immediately because of its power when left untreated. In this effort, the kritik and the educator find common ground. Both can be checks against potentially oppressive language. Both, when taken seriously and not abused, have protective and empowering qualities.

The kritik serves to raise awareness to social injustice, oppression, tyranny, and the like. The kritik in LD often moves from theory to practice, teaching performers and audiences that our ideas, our language, and even our performance have potentially detrimental ramifications. A skillfully debated kritik in LD often depends on linking the advocacy of a debater to a mindset or system of consciousness with hegemonic impacts. While hegemony may not be specifically discussed, themes of oppression and subjugation characterize the kritik. The kritik refuses to engage the framework or basic arguments of opponents because the individual relies on oppressive assumptions. To debate within the framework or structure of the opposing debater or resolution would mean consenting to these flaws and the impacts they accrue.

The 2004 September/October resolution asked affirmative debaters to value individual claims of privacy over competing claims of societal good. A common example used by debaters on both sides is gay rights. Affirmative debaters contend that privacy is needed to protect gay individuals from a heterosexist majority. Conversely, rather than engaging in the current discussion on gay liberation, queer theorists reject the categorical use of the word gay because it has a connotative definition that denies the existence of individuals within the community. In the queer context, the inter-sexed individual is not considered gay, but still relegated to freak show status. “Gay” is a social construction. It is an identity constructed by the heterosexist majority and reconstructed by gay liberators. The term “queer” conversely accepts all. A queer individual chooses to reject all sexual categories and embrace authenticity. While I have not seen a queer theory kritik used in LD, the structure of one may look something like this:

1. Links:

A. The affirmative liberation model relies on the construction of a gay identity. My opponent contends that within the realm of privacy, one’s identity is realized. The specific identity discussed in case is within the category of “homosexual.”

B. Even if the affirmative does not construct identity, the use of the term “gay,” particularly in the context of gay rights, engages the gay liberation framework.

2. Impacts:

A. The gay liberation framework assumes that identity is categorical. Individuals outside of the category are demonized. Their identity is denied. This Manichean or binary construction of identity is at the heart of oppression. It is always safe to oppress the individual or group when they are commonly thought to be inferior, deviant or worst of all, evil.

B. The construction of identity vis-à-vis the oppressor perpetuates the binary. The oppressor who once vilified the oppressed is now vilified by the oppressed. In this light, oppression becomes an infinitely regressive cycle.

3. Alternative:

Queer Theory: Infusing our vocabulary with the term queer and rejecting language that reflects categorical definitions of identity empowers the individual. “Queer” celebrates diversity and transcends sexuality. The alternative transcends the gay/straight binary by rejecting all oppressive binaries as false dichotomies.

The queer theory kritik above requires substantially more analysis and evidence and only links to a specific advocacy used by some debaters. To run this type of kritik would require LD debaters to have another negative case available to run when the kritik does not link or an adaptation of the kritik to link to an implied framework within the resolution. Regardless of what type of kritik is run, we should listen. If for just a moment we give the critic the benefit of the doubt, very high stakes emerge. When the critical debater genuinely wishes to hear the voice of the voiceless or challenge normative assumptions, their arguments must be heard. To silence their arguments would often mean ignoring very real suffering. Such ignorance is never in the best interest of education if education is intended to empower.

Conversely, when the critic is disingenuous, she risks entrenching the hegemonic discourse or oppressive framework she critiques. In this sense, the kritik is not a trump argument that undermines the activity by any means. Instead, it is a high risk strategy that demands consistency on the part of the critic. The debater who critiques patriarchal language yet chooses a “masculine” linear debate model risks being called a hypocrite and accruing her own impacts. The accidental use of a single masculine pronoun can result in a loss. By engaging the discourse she labels oppressive, the critical debater becomes the oppressor. Simply put, it is not difficult to face a kritik in LD. A prepared debater can answer kritiks with relative ease. Educators then have the same burden as their counterparts in other fields, to discuss changes in their area of expertise and do their best to understand the evolution of the field.

In a larger context, the field of speech communications is about substantially more than teaching classical Aristotelian rhetoric and preparing children as performers who can be successful in the “real” world. The field often receives less respect than its core curricular counterparts in secondary education and other areas within the humanities in higher education. Teachers without terminal degrees often run programs at American universities and instructors without roots in academic speech communications teach high school forensics. The ambition of such educators is admirable and definitely necessary for the survival of the activity. That being said, we still work within a sub-genre of speech communications and a connection to the larger field should be maintained.

The field teaches us that our language, our performance, and the frameworks we operate within reveal a deeper reality than the one we consciously desire to reveal. The queer theory kritik is born out of the use of queer theory in rhetorical criticism. Queer critics indict the construction of identity as a result of subscribing to modern liberation theory and seek to identify queer themes in communication artifacts. Without digressing too much, I merely wish to make the point that our field is critical. To deny the kritik is to limit the definition of communication to the intent of the speaker and the reaction of the audience. We’ve come a long way since Aristotle’s Rhetoric and understand that communication has deep layers that demand sophisticated analysis. The kritik offers this analysis, and hence builds an interesting bridge between LD and the larger field.

So, why do we debate? In the words of an anonymous Irish adjudicator at the 1998 Oxford Intervarsity Debating Championships, “debate is the lifeblood of democracy.” The centuries old Oxford Debating Union has hosted speakers ranging from Mother Theresa to Malcolm X. Debaters in the union become part of a rich tradition of empowered advocacy. Unfortunately, as we play our game that is only in its third decade of life, we often forget that we are part of an ancient and global community that at its core upholds difference. To oppose the kritik categorically is to deny our purpose.

Professor Lising explains,
The goal of every debate is to celebrate diversity of opinion, belief and understanding. Social dogma often limits a person’s ability to formulate creative critiques on current views and practices. Debate forces these “abnormal” perspectives to the forefront and challenges blind devotion to popular pedagogy.

Debate cannot be about silencing. Silencing the kritik or any other methodological variation silences debate itself. Empowering the kritik is not just consistent with the spirit of debate; it is consistent with the spirit of Lincoln Douglas debate specifically.

The kritik in LD reveals purpose in the system of valuation characterizing the form. Lincoln Douglas advocacy is markedly different than that in policy because of its value based rather than plan based approach. LD debaters often forget that value systems are spring boards for action. Valuing the abstract is generally not an end in and of itself. While LD participants may end a debate with “and hence my value is achieved,” they forget that when a specific value or value set becomes a goal, new frameworks are born. Put another way, values guide action. One cannot just value equality. One who values equality must also act in a way that reflects an egalitarian value framework. Traditionally, this framework test is applied to the ground on either side of the resolution to determine the resolution’s validity. The kritik extends accountability. It holds performers, framers, the debate community and society at large. To disallow such revelation is to say our words only have the power they are granted by the speaker. The kritik views the speaker as the result of valuation, social position, status, intersecting narratives, and a variety of other factors. Exploring these factors acknowledges that the value framework at the foundation of LD has more significance than being a rhetorical device designed by the speaker for the top of case. In LD there is a fundamental belief that values guide action even if that action is merely affirmation or negation of the resolution. LD grants that something deeper than empirics is needed to explain human behavior. Similarly, critical debate is about uncovering those things that control us and combating that control.

Most successful kritiks are organized around links, impacts and alternatives. One way to think of LD is to look at the value premise as alternative. The negative impacts in case are designed to prove the opposing advocacy links to a debater’s framework. Positive argumentation similarly links to the framework by achieving a criterion and hence, reaching the alternative. In this light, LD is critical. While critics may not admit it, alternatives in kritiks are often very similar to value based frameworks. A feminism kritik seems to tacitly desire some sort of equality or authentication of identity. The kritik is different in that the entire scope of the resolution or opposing framework is painted as oppressive and hence, to engage the framework would be to succumb or even consent to such oppression. Nonetheless, there is common ground. One strategy merely goes a step further than the other.

The kritik is certainly not the panacea of debate, but perhaps what its opponents really dislike is the tendency of critical debaters to dismiss their adversaries, speak at ridiculous rates, ignore performance technique, pervert their authors’ theories and engage hegemonic discourse. These are other issues for another essay, but the validity of critical debate should not be dismissed just because students perform poorly. When deciding if the kritik has a place in LD, we have to evaluate the context of our game. It is part of several intersecting communities, and within each community, the kritik has a place. While it may be an uncomfortable interruption of a great conversation, we have to accept the possibility that the kritik may change the conversation for the better.

Rejecting the Kritik
By Cyndy Woodhouse

The face of Lincoln Douglas Debate is changing. In recent years, debaters have turned from persuasion and theoretical arguments within the construction of the resolution to kritiking the internal structure. The kritik, as many understand it, is meant to question the legitimacy of the proposition based on either linguistic or conceptual flaws. Kritiking a topic works outside of the resolution and seeks to encourage acceptance or rejection for reasons other than those directly related to the conflict in the proposition. For example, a language kritik would encourage a judge to reject the resolution because of the gendered, cultural or otherwise biased language used either in the resolution or by the opponent, such as “he,” “she,” “United States,” etc. This kritik not only has little to do with the actual content of the topic, but it invites the judge to make personal decisions about the validity of a debater making specific language choices. Debaters encourage intervention of the audience within the scope of personal political or sociolinguistic perceptions. Use the ballot as a weapon. Change the world. This question of the kritik in Lincoln Douglas essentially boils down to one of activism: will rejecting the resolution based on a fundamental linguistic or conceptual flaw change the nature of society or truly educate those involved? No.

There are three general objections to the kritik as it has been applied to Lincoln Douglas Debate. First, kritiking a topic does not address the question of the resolution. The overall expectation that judges have (and rightly so) when they walk into a debate round is to hear a debate about the resolution. The National Forensic League has a Lincoln Douglas Debate wording committee which is responsible for discussing topics submitted by debaters, coaches and judges and attempting to organize their language in a way that produces cohesive, fair debate ground on either side. Both sides are responsible for developing a defensible, clear position to justify affirmation or negation of the resolution. In the process, because resolutions deal with rather specific conflicts of either theory or pragmatic problems, debaters have the opportunity to educate their audiences about issues which may not have been originally considered. This power to spark discourse on important but less “obvious” issues is often stretched to justification for kritiks because they educate debaters and judges about social ills; however, the “education” offered by debaters only creates the illusion of activism. Debaters rarely appear to care about the arguments they run in kritiks (students don’t seem to really care about breaking down the American conception of what’s right and wrong). This is easily seen by the fact that debaters will not run kritiks for every kind of judge and may very well only run them for judges who “don’t mind them.” If the true goal was education, debaters wouldn’t restrict the audience for whom they perform these kritiks. Quite frequently, these are the same students seen jokingly calling each other “retarded” in the cafeteria or becoming upset if they don’t clear, which contradicts any attempt to actually deconstruct linguistic choices or to be more concerned with education than winning.

Kritiks may also reject the notion of conventions established for Lincoln Douglas debate to separate it from other speech/debate activities, but do not do so to make LD more accessible to a diverse community. There are ways to change argument methodology and to question convention which also makes the activity more user-friendly. For example, breaking from current LD convention would mean considering taking some prep time before cross-examination so debaters can evaluate what they have just heard and consider some good questions before beginning. Instead of challenging conventional arguments by kritiking the mere existence of government, it is more logical to discuss the detriments of government within the scope and context of the resolution. Debaters running language kritiks because they disagree with biased language ought merely consider eliminating those language patterns from their own vocabularies and suggesting that others do the same. If a debater has a problem with the wording or content of the topic, s/he ought make submissions of topics to the NFL LD wording committee or contact his/her representative on that committee to ask questions or make suggestions.

Second, linguistic and conceptual kritiks ask the judge to intervene. Linguistic kritiks such as gender, ethnocentric or anthropocentric language ask the judge to reject the resolution because of the potential entrenchment of charged or derogatory language in our vernacular. The assumption in a language kritik is that all individuals understand language in the same manner. Often, the single interpretation offered by the debater to justify the kritik of language is from a specific school of thought. For example, a debater claiming that you ought to reject the resolution or his/her opponent because s/he uses masculine pronouns does so from the understanding that this is unacceptable or causes a direct harm to others. This kind of kritik appeals to a very specific audience. Kritiking the existence of government or a governing agency makes a political statement and not a debate argument (even if applied to the resolution). This invitation to intervene calls for a rejection of the resolution based on personal political beliefs which may not be known by the opposing debater (or even the author of the kritik), which means that assumptions about and labels are applied to the adjudicator (i.e. “She ‘looks’ like a liberal, she’ll buy the feminism kritik.”). As more of the judging pool becomes college-aged students, debaters will be more likely to place labels on those judges to minimize the amount of adaptation they employ. For example, a relatively well-dressed but young-looking judge who has had some experience in the activity may be labeled as more “conservative.” The assumption is then that arguments poking fun at government or at business administration may not be as acceptable as they might if run in front of an individual wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

Beyond physical appearance, some judges have been pigeon-holed into student-created categories of “old school,” “hack,” or even “stupid.” A debater with a kritik in his or her arsenal is careful not to run a kritik for these kinds of judges due to fear of losing based on personal biases. This labeling and fear is ironic, considering that the personal biases of a judge are precisely what the kritik is aimed to exploit. Debaters running kritiks inconsistently (in front of some judges who have said that they appreciate this kind of debate and not in front of judges who imply or articulate dislike for this approach to debate) are indeed practicing judge adaptation, but of a different, more personal nature. The focus is no longer on adapting specific arguments about the resolution to different perspectives about them; rather, it is about accepting or rejecting the resolution because of a different bias—one which does not belong in debate—a bias about a term, concept or linguistic choice which is not inherent in the resolution itself. It should be noted that this is the logical fallacy of Ad Populum: appealing to personal prejudices and passions (and intervention is one of the primary complaints of high school debaters of their judging pools at various tournaments). Language and conceptual kritiks also associate the author of the case or the defender of the position with the bad concept/linguistic choice being indicted. It’s essentially an ad hominum attack. By saying that the concept of privacy is inherently American and attempting to prove that any affirmation of the resolution is an attempt to inculcate other cultures with our conception of privacy, the kritiker calls the affirmative debater ethnocentric and implies that the individual is a bigot (this isn’t nice either).

In addition, kritiking the resolution conceptually or linguistically, based on the implication of a concept or word, rarely has specific outcome or impact. Aside from whether or not a judge is “buying” a kritik, debaters must consider the actual importance of their arguments. Why is it true that saying “he” will necessarily entrench the patriarchy even further? Why is it bad for American students (such as most American debaters are) to perpetuate American English or American concepts in the debate? For non-US-specific resolutions, the kritik of American “policy” as a concept is perhaps appropriate as a response to an argument which limits the realm of debate only to the United States; however, as a full case kritik, it avoids the meat of the conflict and does not actually “educate” the community about the potential damage behind what is being kritiked. Kritiking assumes some sort of real-world implication and implementation of the resolution, but nothing actually happens when the ballot is signed for the affirmative or negative beyond one individual receiving a win and one individual receiving a loss. Though the content of the arguments presented in the kritik may encourage listeners to consider their language choice or the way a concept is perceived (government, marriage, etc.), not only will it take a while for the judge to understand what is being run the first time it is heard, but debate will not ensue over the content of the kritik for the most part. Two different debates begin: one inside resolution-land, one outside resolution-land. Even debaters who actually debate the validity of the kritik will not accomplish the assumed purpose of the kritik—to reject the resolution for clearly violating linguistic or conceptual propriety—because 45 minutes just isn’t enough time for that discussion.

Finally, debaters should believe what they run in their cases. Debaters should feel as though they are educators in unique positions to impart information to an audience not as specialized in the topic area as they are. Debaters should engage in Critical Forensics (to borrow a term from Mr. JJ Rodriguez of San Marino High School). Critical Forensics acknowledges that students in persuasive speaking activities have the ability and opportunity to affect change through that activity. At the same time, this empowerment should be encouraged in terms of the resolution. To some extent, debaters should acknowledge that they need to “play the game.” By engaging in a persuasive speaking activity and learning LD specifically instead of policy, extemp or public forum, debaters acknowledge that there are certain format or implementation differences between the activities which they appreciate. The topics assigned to LD are assigned based on the conventions of the activity and are worded such that they may be more conducive to discussion of value or theory and less conducive to propositions of policy. LD debaters should engage in critical forensics and work within the unique framework they are offered in this activity. They should give different perspectives regarding the affirmation or negation of the resolution with in-depth topic analysis and strategic arguments to persuade the judge and audience that their arguments are better. Debaters should educate the public with new and different information. Change the game from the inside with more theory-based arguments and turn LD back into a strategic activity. Debaters have the ability to raise the bar in educating others about pragmatic and theoretical issues and they should use this opportunity.

The discussion and evolution of arguments which take place following a tournament are most impressive when debaters and coaches with different social vocabularies, understandings of the topic and perspectives about important and unimportant arguments decide that the challenge of debate is to find a “better” or more persuasive way to make their points. The activity should be about learning different methods of communicating within the context of a common ground (the resolution). The most beautiful thing about Lincoln Douglas Debate is watching true discourse take place: two debaters on the same page, arguing for specific sides and positions. LD should be a demonstration of knowledge about a given topic, using argumentation to persuade the audience and judge. Change the face of the activity by finding more strategic, well-thought-out, accessible arguments. If you don’t want to debate the topic, stay home. Don’t be a tricky debater. Be a smart debater.

(Mr. J. J. Rodriguez is an instructor at Iowa's National Summer Institute in Forensics; Director of Forensics at San Marino High School, Director of the newly formed Institute for Critical Forensics and former Associate Director of Forensics at the University of La Verne. )

(Ms. Cyndy Woodhouse is the Director of Debate at West High School in Iowa City, IA. Cyndy has coached students who have won the Iowa State Debate Championship and have competed in late elimination rounds at the TOC and the NFL National Tournament.)

This article is a reprint from the 2005 NFHS LD Annual
To order the NFHS Annual, contact:
NFHS Customer Service
P.O. Box 361246
Indianapolis, IN 46236-5324
Phone: 800-776-3462
Fax: 317-899-7496 or order online at www.nfhs.com