何為政策辯論中反方的Kritik策略（Critique策略）？

01-05

在既往對政策辯論的學習中，我見識到部分文章或講座中提及一種反方可選擇的策略，名為kritik（一說critique），且對此產生了兩種不同的描述，我很好奇這二者是否是一件事情，也希望有人可以推薦此類打法的典型視頻供學習。
簡單介紹一下：
一為critique，我所理解的大意是：相比於正方所提出的政策，現在有其他更重要的問題需要探討。所接觸的案例是，在我們探討美國政府應該完成某稅制改革時，反方站在人權組織或某些黨派的立場，主張先討論同性婚姻合法化。我腦補的案例是：當我們探討城市下水管道的修繕時，反方認為不該修繕，因為敵人已經兵臨城下，相比於修水管，擊退敵人更值得被探討。
一為kritik，我閱讀到的描述為：「反方可以主張正方的某一錯誤觀念或假定前提是不可接受的，因此必須拒絕基於此的正方計劃，或在拒的同時提出互斥的替代方案。Kritik有時拒絕的是整個正方立場，而不用評估其具體政策；其他時候Kritik能像正方辯案一樣接受在統一框架內評判。Kritik反對的不良觀念包括生命權力、種族主義、集權政府、人類中心主義等。Kritik興起於20世紀90年代，首次出現的Kritik是用結構主義的哲學觀點來反對語言本質上的模糊性。經過發展，今天的Kritik還包括了「同意正方辯題的立場但不同意其中含有的不良理念，繼而在其基礎上提出替代方案」的做法。這些Kritik會論證：支持正方的理由中會暗含著某些本體論，這些本體論會導致某些不可避免的弊端，因此必須拒絕這些不良理念。如此一來，Kritik就可以繞開正方方案本身能帶來多少利益的問題，轉而將辯論的焦點放到正方計劃中體現這些不良理念的部分。同時反方可以提出自己的相應替代方案：只替換掉正方計劃含有不良理念的部分，而讓其餘部分完全通過。這種類型的替代方案通常被稱作PIK（plan inclusive Kritik alternative）。」但我並沒有據此想像出何種具體的案例，大概腦補的是：反方主張不應該延長女性產假，因為這默認了應由女性照顧孩子，違背女權的主張，因此反方主張政策為男女共享一段時期的產假，兩人共同決定由誰休假。不知道這個理解是否正確。
誠懇向各位提問，希望能夠幫忙辨析這兩個策略的異同。感謝。

謝邀。

Kritik是一個德語單詞，意為「批判」，康德三大批判用的就是這個詞。《實踐理性批判》即Kritik der praktischen Vernunft，英譯為「Critique of Practical Reason」。在政策性辯論中，kritik是一個專業術語，可簡稱為「K」，一般翻譯成「哲學批判」或「哲學顛覆」。

題主引的兩種說法，第二種的說法的來源，是我翻譯的英語維基百科中「policy debate」的主詞條。

點擊進入英文詞條

點擊進入中文翻譯

第一種說法不知道從何而來，我猜想是有人把Kritik一詞對應成了英語的critique，然後又從其形容詞critical引申，把這個多義詞（批判的、重要的）理解成了「重要的」，才有了「其他更重要問題需要討論」的策略一說。論證「更重要的問題」只是Kritik許多打法中的一種。

事實上，Kritik是美國政策性辯論中的「黑魔法」，在很多比賽中評委都是禁止選手提出Kritik arguments的，因為其直接挑戰了政策性辯論經典規則的基礎。中國大陸所有政策性辯論比賽和台灣的絕大多數比賽評委都禁止這一打法。

Kritik批判和顛覆的概念有很多，從種族主義、集權政府、人類中心主義、主權國家，甚至於到因果關係、理性等決策的基石都可能受到挑戰。

舉例而言，在辯論「中國應廢除死刑」時，反方的主張：「國家」的概念本身暗含有害的觀念，這個世界上不應該存在國家，所以正方的辯題主張（中國廢除死刑）是錯的。這種打法完全不考慮政策的實際利弊，因而完全脫離了政策性辯論制度「訓練理性決策」的初衷。

關於這一打法的起源，是美國的一些學校想借用政策性辯論的賽制來訓練學生哲學思辨的能力的一種趣味性做法，發展到後來在正式比賽中被一部分評委所接受，但仍存在大量拒絕Kritik的評委。

需要注意的是，美國的Kritik和傳辯中的「價值演繹」不是一回事。在提出哲學顛覆的時候，仍然要遵守「引用理論證據原文，提出價值影響力（impact），說服評委採納相應判准（decision rule）」的規則。Kritik重在價值觀念的學理分析，而非情感渲染。因而在許多同學來問我他們的某種價值演繹的打法是不是Kritik時，我都會告訴他們兩者幾乎毫無關係。

下面是一段完整的對於「因果關係」進行哲學批判的示例，下面引用材料的「每一個字」，從A到F，「在場上都必須全部說出來」才能算完成論證。

【Observation: Deterministic causality should be rejected】

A. A deterministic world-view is a hidden assumption of the Affirmative case.

Analysis: Determinism sees the universe as a clockwork mechanism of cause and effect. By presenting arguments based on causality, the Affirmative tacitly endorses this world-view. The Negatives see this viewpoint as fundamentally flawed, and we are clashing with the Affirmative on the basis of this unstated assumption.

B. Deterministic causality is an unproven assumption.

Determinism is unproven

Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, Cambridge Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 216: "Yet we must emphasize that the principle that every event is completely determined by causes has not been proved, and is not clearly self-evident. We cannot even conceive a way in which determinism could be plausibly worked out in detail for the mind, and even if true of the material world, doubtful as this may be nowadays, mind and matter are sufficiently different for us to have no good grounding for concluding by analogy that it is true of mind."

Causal reasoning is circular reasoning

John Passmore (prof. of philosophy, Australian National Univ.) in The Great Philosophers, edited by Bryan Magee, 1987, p. 149: "To say that the same causes must always have the same effects because nature is uniform is just to say, or so Hume argues, that they must have the same effects because they must have the same effects. This gets us absolutely nowhere."

A simple sequence in time does not establish causality

Bryan Magee (senior research fellow in the history of ideas, Kings College, Univ. of London), The Great Philosophers, 1987, p. 149: "It does not save the situation to say: We know that Event A is the cause of Event B because B always and invariably follows A. Day always and invariably follows night, but neither is the cause of the other. Invariant conjunction, though it is all we observe, is not the same thing as causal connection. It could be the case, by sheer coincidence, that every time I cough you sneeze, but my coughs would not then be the cause of your sneezes."

C. Conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinism.

Analysis: Determinism conflicts with the concept of free will, for if determinism is true, then all our actions indeed, our thoughts and motives that give rise to our actions are the effects of causes in the distant past. We would have no choices. Given that free will exists, determinism must be false.

Determinism and free will are mutually incompatible

Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, Cambridge Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 207: [According to determinists:] "Every act of mine was determined by previous causes and therefore, it may be argued, I can never be or have never been free at any given time, because, whatever time I take, my actions then were determined by earlier ones which I could not alter once they had been performed."

The conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinism

Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, Cambridge Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 211: "On the one hand we have no right to expect that the common-sense conceptions of responsibility will be exactly right; on the other, we should certainly be justified in rejecting determinism if it were shown to be incompatible with any tolerable system of ethics. Determinism after all cannot be proved, and we know some ethical propositions, such as that it is wrong to ignore the interests of others, with almost as much certainty as we know anything."

D. Conflict with recent scientific discoveries justifies rejecting determinism.

Analysis: Last century, Heisenberg『s Uncertainty Principle became the cornerstone of the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics. A simple implication of this science borne out in thousands of subsequent experiments is that on the atomic level events can and do occur without being caused, and equal causes do not necessarily lead to equal results. More recently, the development of chaos theory and complexity theory have proven that it is impossible to predict events on the macro-level, since minute difference below any possible threshold of detection will drive the system to produce results other than predicted. Mechanistic determinism is invalid across the scale from the smallest to the largest events.

The principles of quantum mechanics prove that determinism is false

Dr. Michio Kaku (prof. of theoretical physics, City Univ. of New York Graduate Center) and Jennifer Trainer (freelance science writer), Beyond Einstein, 1987, p. 50: "The French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace took this one step further and believed all future events (not just the return of Halley『s Comet and future eclipses of the sun, but future wars and irrational human decisions) could be calculated in advance if the initial motion of all the atoms from the beginning of time were known. For example, determinism in its most extreme form states that it is possible to calculate in advance with mathematical precision which restaurant you will be eating in ten years from now, and what you will order. Moreover, according to this view, whether we wind up in heaven or hell is determined ahead of time. There is no free will."

Same source, pp. 50-51: "According to Heisenberg, however, all of this is nonsense. Our fate is not sealed in a quantum heaven or hell. The uncertainty principle makes it impossible to predict the precise behavior of atoms, let alone the universe. Moreover, according to the theory, in the subatomic realm, only probabilities can be calculated. Since, for example, it is impossible to know the exact position and velocity of the electron, it is impossible to predict much about the electron『s individual behavior."

The principles of chaos theory suggests that determinism is false

Paul Davies (prof. of mathematical physics, Univ. of Adelaide, Australia) and John Gribben (astrophysicist), The Matter Myth, 1992, p. 15: "It has been discovered that so-called nonlinear effects can cause matter to behave in seemingly miraculous ways, such as becoming self-organizing and developing patterns and structures spontaneously. Chaos is a special case of this: it occurs in nonlinear systems which become unstable and change in random and totally unpredictable ways. Thus the rigid determinism of Newton『s clockwork universe evaporates, to be replaced by a world in which the future is open, in which matter escapes its lumpen limitations and acquires an element of creativity."

E. Impact: Rejection of determinism has implications for policy debate.

1. Implications for the Affirmative

Analysis: If deterministic causality is untrue, then it becomes unprovable that the Affirmative harms will persist, regardless of any inherency evidence presented. Likewise, it becomes unprovable that the plan will act to abate the harms, regardless of any solvency evidence presented. The ability of the Affirmative to win either of these stock issues is contingent on the truth or falsity of the hidden assumption of determinism.

2. Implications for the Negative

Analysis: If determinism is proven untrue, the Negative must win, because inherency and solvency evaporate. If, on the other hand, determinism is proven to be true, then causal arguments become viable, and the weight of Negative case and disadvantage arguments will be applied against the Affirmative『s net solved harms.

F. Decision rule: The status of determinism becomes a voting issue in the round.

1. This is an absolute issue.

At the end of the round, determinism will need to be evaluated as either true or false, based on the preponderance of evidence introduced. There is no leeway for a weighed impact; an absolute, yes-or-no answer is required.

2. This is an a priori issue.

Because the validity of inherency and solvency rests on the issue of determinism, the judge will need to evaluate determinism first, before stock issues and substantive arguments are examined.

3. This becomes a voting issue for the Affirmative.

To win, the Affirmative must have valid inherency and solvency at the end of the round. That can only be accomplished by defeating our objection to determinism. Therefore the objection itself can be thought of as a threshold position the Affirmative must pass before they are allowed to proceed further.

(FINISH)

更詳細的內容，請見Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter 14: The Kritik

但請注意作者的提示：Don』t read this chapter until you are familiar with speaker duties, stock issues, and the other material covered in the earlier chapters.

在閱讀本章內容之前請務必對前十章的內容充分熟悉和掌握，否則容易產生誤解。

我記得@DEMACCA 的回答里有。

如果沒有，可以邀請他回答。

專有名詞不懂，但看了吳大大的答案，感覺類似的論其實我們都接觸過....

同性戀婚姻合法化的題目，經常有反方這麼立論：婚姻制度根植於農業社會，以家庭為單位確保社會穩定，時至今日，婚姻制度已經過時了。因此LGBT們不該追求落後的婚姻制度的認可，應該和大家一起，推翻這種不合理的綁定製度。因此，不應該追求同性戀婚姻合法化。

要翻譯的童鞋，先點贊同，贊同都不點還想要答主的東西哼。翻譯已經發布到專欄了，要看的自覺點贊同吧

底下的答案不改了，就加一段說明吧。之前通過各個渠道普及政策辯知識，我只有一次講課收過費，單人的費用比知乎9.9更低。這次呢因為我翻譯加校對也是費了一些功夫的，所以才會有以下的說法。經前輩在評論區提醒，看來必須免費，但我還是想把翻譯分享出來，需要的同學私聊我吧，就當做一點我力所能及的普及。

帥學長引用的文獻（introduction of policy debate）的第14章，我完整翻譯為中文並對譯文做了校對，使之各用語的翻譯符合通用中文辯論術語和通用的中文哲學譯名。英文不好，懶得翻譯，對英文哲學術語不熟悉等等的同學歡迎私聊我，可以低價出給你們。系本人勞動成果，恕不免費，不過也不貴就對了