KFM

To create a blueprint, the Kritik-Focus Model must have a purpose. Proponents of Kritik debate argue that it creates opportunity for epistemological growth that students do not experience elsewhere because they are incentivized by ballots to research a wide variety of arguments that challenge their understanding of the world *1. This is consistent with Roger Solt’s (1995, p. A9-10) claim that decisions in any debates represent provisional judgements that produce, “our moral and political belief system[s]”. At the end of a season or a career, each person is fundamentally transformed by the conversations they have been a part of. Alternatively, defenders of the PFM argue that competitive equity and a fair decision is the only thing each round should represent. However, the competition for its own sake is unacceptable in an educational activity. Tiffany Dillard-Knox, Director of The University of Louisville Malcolm X Debate Society and former participant in “The Louisville Project” *2 warns us against such a mode of competition: “Competition at all costs is dangerous…Our argument was that people wanted to win and would do anything to win regardless of the dehumanizing effects of particular strategies… like the Malthus argument…it was all about winning... Competition at all costs creates harmful effects because we’re not thinking about the people we are debating against…” Prior to Kritik debaters pushing back on competition at all costs, judges would allow students to make racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory arguments because, as Director Dillard-Knox explains,” … literally anything went”. Today, judges are willing to penalize debaters for creating a hostile environment because competition is no longer our sole priority. To avoid this pitfall, KFM will prioritize that the educational environment and the growth of students over any marginal benefits of improved competition. The Kritik-Focus Model starts with the Affirmative team. It is their burden to choose a critical/cultural perspective based, at least partially, on academic research and apply it to the Resolution. Perspectives run the gamut from Critical Race Theory, Womanism, Latinx, and Marxist perspectives to broader theories of Ontology, Epistemology, and Cosmology. From their critical/cultural understanding of the Resolution, the Affirmative must advocate a Method of change that departs from the status quo. The Negative team has the burden of rejoinder—they must prove that the Affirmative Method is not desirable. To prove that the Affirmative is not desirable, the Negative must choose a critical/cultural perspective, evaluate the Affirmative, and respond. After a year of Kritikal debates on the Resolution, a single student would have been exposed to dozens of critical perspectives and would have a deep understanding of forgotten or sublimated histories that they do not learn anywhere else. By the end of a debate career, competitors would be incentivized to be proficient and well-read across all parts of the academy. The NDT champion, CEDA, or TOC champion would represent the team with the best ability to evaluate, apply, and articulate critical/cultural theories and methods to global problems.

KFM Smith 20 [Elijah Smith is the Director of the Rutgers University–Newark Debate Team, which is housed in the School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA) at Rutgers University–Newark. “The Kritik-Focus Model of Debate” Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Argumentation, Volume 6. August 2020. ] bfinzer

The Kritik-Focus Model of debate is a necessary addition to our collective defense of College Policy Debate. It is indebted to the work of those who fought to create space in our community to ask questions, push boundaries, and to learn deeply about injustice. Using Community-Based Action Research I have laid out formal articulation of a model of debate that maximizes the epistemological return on, what I hope can be, our collective investment in the Kritik as a source of epistemological growth. This model of debate meets the criteria for change: sustain a season of academically rigorous debate, an ethical role for the Affirmative, and a clear and engaging role for the Negative. Without the option of self-selecting out of critical conversations, debaters would have to meet a higher burden of academic rigor over the course of a year and a career. Affirmatives limited by the Radical Stasis Point that has empowered black and minority students would advocate clear changes from the status quo. The Negative, with a broader understanding of what engagement means, would directly clash with genres of Affirmative arguments using Case arguments, Counter-Methods, and Ethics arguments. As many Kritikal First-Rounds, Copeland Panelists, and CEDA and NDT champions have proven— the Negative can and will continue to win in Kritik debates. While there is certainly more work to be done on articulating the Kritik-Focus Model of debate, this paper serves as the beginning of a community conversation about the Kritik in 2020 and beyond.