Twelve Days of “CX-Mas” - Core Kritiks

“On the second day of Christmas my true love sent to me

An overview of core kritiks”

As part of an ongoing series, Kankee Briefs is releasing daily articles between Christmas and January 6th as part of the “Twelve Days of CX-Mas.”

Today’s guide is related to having a terse overview of major kritiks (otherwise known as a K’s). 

Your intent ought to be that you should have a somewhat brief guide on each kritik, of which are limited and are for rudimentary explanatory purposes and are not highly detailed. Treat this as a quick reference guide of what each critique is and generally how to treat it, and as applicable, analyze its arguments and answers in more detail. 

What Are The Most Common Kritiks

The number of kritiks has no hard limit, as there always will be some obtuse and obscure critiques based on arcane, esoteric philosophy that you likely don't have experience with. Early on, prioritize having a solid foundational understanding of core kritiks that are likely to pop up, and then expand your knowledge base with more fringe K’s. Core critiques are widely usable in a variety of resolutions: some are so commonly ran that they ought be considered generic critiques as they're always applicable irrespective of the actual topic literature.

When analyzing all available kritik files on Open Evidence over the past 10+ years, which can be a rough proxy for the commonality of kritiks for a variety of topics, you can roughly approximate how likely you might encounter a critique. More popular critiques are, generally speaking, more likely to have more entries throughout more years (given its broad usability), while uncommon critiques may only have a few entries across a few years (as they're highly topic specific). 

For the sake of argument, a core kritik could be considered any kritik composing more than ~3% of kritiks . These include capitalism/neoliberalism, feminist IR/gender, afro-pessimism, security, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, biopower, and psychoanalysis

A chart of the relative encounter likelihood for each kritik is found below.

There are three particularly noteworthy things to keep in mind in light of quantified kritik data. First, ~80% of evidence has historically been one of the eight core kritiks.

Second, kritiks involving concepts like semiotics (Deleuze and Guattari), hyperreality (Baudrillard),, alongside other identity critiques like asian/queer rage and ableism, are much less likely to encountered. 

Third, remember that the top kritik is capitalism/neoliberalism as it accounts for ~30% of all critiques, which is almost three times as the second most common kritik. Generally speaking, if you know there is an aff/neg kritik in a round, there is a ⅓ chance a capitalism/neoliberalism will be involved (especially given that the capitalism K is one of the two go-to responses to critical affirmatives). 

There's nothing wrong with a desire to write answers regarding the political philosophy of Baudrillard, Bataille, or Buddhism, but you ought to remember that proportionally speaking, core critiques (especially capitalism) ought to have the most time dedicated to them. Even at high levels of debate, the likelihood of facing a critique from these authors pales in comparison to facing identity critiques.

However, don't ignore uncommon critiques either - spend time to have, at minimum, a rudimentary understanding and carded arguments for most kritiks. If you don't already have a block file for aff answers to kritiks, make one, as a solid compilation of arguments for most every kritik is a Herculean task..

Additionally, these statistics are by definition imperfect and your experience in-round and the particular topic ought to guide what kritiks you prepare the most for. For instance, kritikal performance affirmatives, though somewhat rare, ought to be paid attention to and may be considered a ninth core kritik that you definitely ought to be familiar with (especially given the strategy on how to answer k-affs is entirely different then answering kritiks when aff).

Capitalism/Neoliberalism Kritik

Capitalism kritiks are both the easiest to understand, and by extension, the most popular. This is often the quintessential, go-to example when learning how a critique functions. The capitalism kritik argues that the current global economic system with privatized goods and services and individual ownership of property ought to be fundamentally restructured and/or rethought. 

Often it's fair to treat the capitalism kritik as a economic growth bad impact with a “uniqueness CP” that ends capitalism absent the plan. Effectively, much of the literature is similar to a de-development argument (often seen as an impact turn for economic impacts) in that allowing the structural destruction of the capitalistic economic system is good in that capitalism itself is bad and ought to be destroyed. You can easily win or lose this kritik on the impact level - one of the principal questions is whether capitalism is beneficial or not. 

For instance, one of the strongest impacts for the capitalism kritik is climate change/biodiversity; it critiques how capitalism is reliant on the carefree exploitation of the environment and will, by any means necessary, maintain the business-as-usual, corporation friendly status quo. However, given this is an impact centered kritik, arguments about climate change being good are entirely legitimate, as they prove capitalism is a good thing that ought to be preserved. Similarly, typical economic growth good impacts or transition war arguments ought to be made. 

Any good capitalism kritik will argue that capitalism is not sustainable (we’ll run out of resources or inequality/economic instability will grow too great), making an earlier transition away from capitalism necessary to avoid the consequences of a cataclysmic later transition. If a transition from a capitalistic economic system is inevitable (and merely a question of when it occurs), capitalism good impacts become non-unique, taking away a key source of aff offense. Affs usually must prove that capitalism is sustainable, economic transitions cause wars, and/or capitalism is intrinsically good (such as reducing overpopulation, fosters innovation, or reduces conflicts with economic interdependence).

As with all kritiks, alternatives widely vary and can range from socialist reforms, solidarity/collectivization mindsets, rejection of the aff, or a communist revolution. Remember that the alternative’s ability to deconstruct capitalism increases potential offense against the alternative. An alternative that does little ought to be answered with solvency deficit arguments while an alternative that does a lot ought to have offensive arguments against the alternative.

A weak alternative such as rejection does practically nothing to change the global economic system, as the resolution/plan is merely a drop in the bucket in terms of what perpetuates global capitalism. Therefore the alternative cannot solve capitalism bad impacts - the alternative is not bad in it within itself, but rather its inability to solve capitalism. In contrast, a stronger alternative mechanism such as a communist revolution is more likely to change how economic systems operate, but likely is independently bad for it being the impetus of wars and mass violence.

Similarly, most kritiks that seek to solve larger societal issues suffer from this weak alternative/no solvency issue. A kritik needs to both have an alternative that is strong enough to solve its impact AND an alternative weak enough so that the aff threatens to un-solve those impacts. If there’s an alternative that’s quite weak, it's less likely to sufficiently change the status quo, but the aff matters more as it can moreso impact the alternative’s solvency. A strong alternative causes widespread changes to society, but needs to win a larger link. If there’s large scale structural change to destroy capitalism, smaller action matters much less. For instance, after a communist revolution, an aff that increases foreign aid will not magically restart global capitalism.

Exploit this weakness to attack the alternative and link at the same time. Use a creative permutation such as one that seeks to “do the aff, and the alternative in every other instance.” This forces the neg team to prove how the aff is uniquely key to preventing structural changes in light of a strong alternative, AND why the alternative is sufficiently strong to solve the issues of present-day things that perpetuate capitalism in the status quo. 

Most of the above discussion is in regards to capitalism kritiks ending with large, existential impacts (i.e. climate change) as those impacts can be weighed as offense against the aff. However, like many other critiques, there are more down-to-earth critiques of capitalism in that it is exploitative, increases inequality, dehumanizes people, etc. These versions of the kritik aim not to solve existential risks, but rather win from a framework that prioritizes structural violence. Affs can still read arguments about transition wars and capitalism good, but the prerequisite is for them to win that their impacts matter in the context of the kritik framework debate.

Feminist International Relations (IR) Kritik

Feminist IR scholarship critiques the non-inclusion of non-heteronormative, non-white, non-masculine voices in otherwise hyper-masculine decision-making. This can be viewed specifically in the context of gender, but more often it takes a broader intersectionality approach by arguing the non-inclusion of all sorts of racial, sexual, and gender minorities alters our perception of problems and how to solve them. It might then ignore gender-based issues and opinions, prioritizing hyper-militarized and aggressive solutions that lack relevant knowledge otherwise available if all voices were included. Feminist IR often borrows and overlaps with the securitization kritik in regards to masculine threat construction. Some elements of the feminist IR kritik criticize the discourse of affs that often rely on traditional IR concepts undergirded by a masculine lens, such as realism, revisionist, rational actors, or the security dilemma. 

A common response to feminist IR kritiks (and some identity critiques) is that ultimately the aff improves the situation for disadvantaged groups. For instance, economic collapse, climate change, and war, especially according to the theory of intersectionality, would be substantially  worse for those with less resources to ride the waves. You can also make arguments in relation to life being the prerequisite for value in that existential risks outweigh structural violence impacts that affect minorities more.

Afro-pessimism/Anti-blackness (Wilderson/Sexton)

Afro-pessimism theory, often written about by Frank Wilderson, describes society as being ontologically anti-black. This means that it's intrinsic to the nature of society that it will dehumanize and denigrate black folk to the point of “social death.” Reform fundamentally fails due to embedded societal structures that inevitably alter how we view blackness. Moreso than settler colonialism, afro-pessimism is extremely questionable towards state action, often treating affs as self-aggrandizing projects to justify the existence of the state and to distract from structural issues of blackness (likely considered a link of omission). Given the view of anti-blackness as ontological, alternatives in afro-pessimism kritiks involve lots of pre-fiat and post-fiat action, such as a rejection of the state or the debate space, or finding means of black liberation outside of state action.

Afro-pessimism answers need justifications for why state reforms are good and how anti-blackness is not ontological - losing either of these means that aff claims to improve black prosperity are a hollow hope and won’t change underlying structures of how society treats blackness. 

Securitization Kritik

Securitization kritiks often criticize the affs’ focus on spectacularized existential risks, treating any and every scenario as highly dangerous potential threats, even when no threat exists. Common examples of securitization often involve the war on terror - the post -9/11 fervour is often contributed to the ability of George W. Bush to push for the invasion of Iraq in search of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. A threat of Saddam Hussien as a nuclear-armed madman was constructed, helping justify foreign policy adventurism when it was in Saddam Hussien’s self-interest to not attack the US.

More modern examples often involve potentially adversarial countries like Russia, China, and Iran. An argument can be made that the provocative military actions, arms build-ups, and skirmishes with the US are not them seeking regional hegemonic dominance to alter the balance of power, but rather a reaction to the threat construction of US policy towards that country. Iran under Obama had solid diplomatic relations and a nuclear deal, but the more hawkish policy towards Iran that resumed under Trump caused more backlash from Iranian proxies and threats of war. To the degree we view countries as revisionist or revanchist rivals that harm the liberal international order and challenge international stability, the greater we think of them as threats, and by extension, the more we deal with them militarily instead of diplomatically.

One of the key responses to a kritik of the aff’s securitization discourse and threat construction is to say that threats are real and not constructed. For this kritik in particular, to the greater degree the aff proves the aff contentions true, the less threats are supposedly constructed. This is especially true in the context of neg concessions on case. If a neg team drops a contention about China being a big baddy in the South China Sea, this is a technical drop and the internal link chain regarding the threat was conceded to be true.

Settler Colonialism (Tuck and Yang)

It's important to clarify what settler colonialism is. Settler colonialism kritiks are distinct from normal critiques of colonialism (what is often referred to as exploitation/extractive colonialism). Settler colonialism centers on the erasure of natives and the repossession of indigenous land for settler use. Broadly speaking, settler colonialism thinks of natives as targets for elimination, not appropriation and exploitation. Colonialism is often entirely distinct from settler colonialism dynamics.

Compare the behavior of colonizers in the Americas, desiring a new nation-state from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the British’s historical occupation of India. Britain’s desire was resource extraction from their colony, not a new nation-state occupied near exclusively by the English at the expense of Indian culture and the existence of its people.

One can have a kritik about settler colonialism without relying on links about colonialism (and vice versa). For instance, powerful countries may wish to exert influence on the Global South to increase oil extraction/resource mining, but that is merely colonialism, not settler colonialism. In past debate topics, much of Israeli behavior in Palestine has been criticized as settler colonialism, as it seeks to overtake Palestinian land and its people, not occupy it to enrich Israel and Palestine’s expense.  

 Anthropocentrism

This kritik focuses on the prioritization of human over the environment and the affs treatment of the environment as a means to human flourishing (caring not for the environment itself). Anthropocentrism is helpful on topics that exploit new environments for the extraction of resources, such as Arctic oil extraction under UNCLOS for the 2025 Jan-Feb LD topic, or environment  topics that often frame the utility of preventing biodiversity loss or climate change in terms of humans harms/benefits. 

Much of the problems described in a capitalism kritik are also applicable for an anthropocentrism kritik. Obviously there is the go-to link that capitalistic exploitation cares not about the environment. There are also the neo-liberalism links about focusing on individual humans’ actions and responsibilities as opposed to community. Hypothetically, many of the capitalism kritik climate change good arguments also apply here, but there’s also arguments in anthropocentrism about the psychological harms of the scholarship of the aff.

Biopower (Agamben/Foucault/Mbembe)

Biopower kritiks focus on the ability of the state to control a population via technology and laws. This is usually premised on the state arguing that regulations of freedoms improve the public good, especially during an emergency (what Agamben would call “the state of exception”).  A vaccine passport during the Covid-19 pandemic would, if implemented, increase governmental power over a population’s freedom to buy goods and services and work jobs. This would substantially curtail individuals’ freedom of movement, but it is done in the name of increasing public welfare. 

Particularly for Agamben, the decline in individual rights and freedoms would increasingly diminish until everyone lives in a state of “bare life” where people lack social rights and protections. The government continually adds restrictions as a means of exerting control over the population all while saying it's for the greater good. It treats individuals as means to the ends of supposedly improving society and making populations more manageable.

As with many kritiks, the resolution itself helps indicate what kritik is the most applicable. For biopower, take for example the 2021 LD Nationals topic “Resolved: A public health emergency justifies limiting civil liberties.” For reference, it ought not be explained that the “public health emergency” was Covid-19.  Biopower arguments were key neg ground and biopower authors like Agamben wrote specifically about the pandemic. Common people had less technically wordy versions of biopower arguments - they said that states exploited the pandemic to decrease the rights of the population and use it as a means of increasing state power and control. 

However, a biopower kritik may be less useful on topics regarding space policy as that isn’t  directly a means of control over the population. For non-identity kritiks like biopower, it's very strategic to choose a kritik to run in-context of the resolution. Medical or criminal justice topics are the easiest examples of biopower kritik topics. In contrast, immigration topics are better for a settler colonialism kritik and economic topics improve the quality of the capitalism kritik.

Psychoanalysis (Lacan/Zizek/Badiou/Freud/Jung)

Psychoanalysis often focuses on death drives and our unconscious desires to do ill will and destroy things with a potentially pseudo-scientific basis in behavioral psychology and the follow-up work to Sigmund Freud. However, the psychoanalysis kritik doesn’t quite have as many overarching tropes such as theories of power, ontology of certain bodies, or disdain for a certain thing. For many kritiks, you can implicitly add the word “bad” to the title and understand much of the content of the kritik; capitalism bad, anthropocentrism bad, settler colonialism bad, are all generally speaking very rough approximations of the content of the kritik. 

In contrast, psychoanalysis is several kritiks used in psychoanalytic research all under the umbrella of the psychoanalysis kritik. Some kritiks focus more so on signifiers while others focus more so on the aforementioned death drive.

 As a general principle for the psychoanalysis kritik (and kritiks more broadly), debate arguments, not labels. A position could be a capitalism kritik but focus more so on capitalism’s exploitative colonialist practices and be a kritik of US imperialism. A settler colonialism kritik can use securitization links about the need to prevent crimes on indigenous lands or the importance of Israel to Mideast stability. Kritiks are not easily categorizable into distinct groups.

There’s significant overlap and you ought to be well versed in the arguments themselves as opposed to merely having cookie cutter blocks to a specific kritik to read without an understanding of the arguments themselves.