Policy debaters should not use Kritikal affs

I'll begin with PRO's points as there really isn't anything substantial here to address, just faulty examples and false assertions. Contention 1 My opponent has made the flat-out assertion here that "there is no solvency for philosophies", which is an overly broad and clearly faulty generalization that betrays PRO's naïveté on the subject of philosophy. At any rate, this is answered by the 3 arguments that I made last round, all of which PRO glossed over without responding to. Those arguments were: 1. A lack of solvency is a problem with the implementation, not the concept. The fact that bad debaters write bad K affs that have no solvency just proves that bad debaters write bad cases, not that kritikal affs are themselves a bad concept. The same bad debaters would write bad policy affs if they chose not to run kritiks. 2. Writing cases that have very unrealistic claims to solvency is a trend that seems to have arisen in policy and one that is not unique to kritiks. Most policy affs have unrealistic scenarios involving global warming and nuclear war that the policy option proposed is very unlikely to solve for. (Reference my post last round for examples.) 3. This argument begs the question by assuming that the consequentialist concept of “solvency” is still important under a non-consequentialist philosophical framework. PRO also asserts that a “philosophy framework” is easy to beat. This is unwarranted, empirically denied by the fact that people still manage to run and win on non-utilitarian affirmatives all the time, and really hard to believe since almost all philosophers would be utilitarians if the arguments in favor of it were so convincing. Contention 2 My opponent’s defense of his 2nd contention is literally one sentence long and contains no actual argument, using instead the metaphor that kritiks “just float around in the sea of thought, not actually coming down to earth.” 4 problems here: 1. All (normative) philosophies have real-world practical application as their purpose is to guide action, meaning they do, in fact, come down to earth. 2. Kritikal affs still defend concrete policy action with plan texts that they can be held to. The only difference is that the warrants for enacting the plan are different. The action is itself the same as that of a policy aff, meaning the same neg arguments still apply. 3. He’s conceded my first argument that his initial claim (that negatives can’t run kritiks against kritikal affs) is false and it is in fact the case that kritikal affs actually allow for better, more substantive kritik debates on the negative because they allow for engagement in the actual philosophy instead of the dumb framework arguments that my opponent seems to hold in such high esteem. 4. PRO has conceded my 3rd argument that the arguments he claims to lose access to aren’t legitimate arguments in the first place, meaning a world in which they aren’t debated is a better one. Contention 2 My opponent asserts that “solvency is the basis for policy debate.” Reference the 1st contention for my defense of kritikal aff solvency. He goes on to ask the presumably rhetorical question, “Why would debater do an event called policy, if they didn't want to act as a policy maker?” Unfortunately for him, there are two easy answers. 1. You can discuss policy without being a policy maker. The most relevant current political example is in Wisconsin where politically active citizens have taken it upon themselves to bring about the policies they believe in, rather than relying on their policy makers. Coincidentally, that concept of individual resistance/solvency is similar to the type of solvency many kritikal affs espouse and is in fact more applicable to the vast majority of people than PRO’s “policy maker” paradigm, since most debaters won’t be policy makers, but they will be politically active. 2. Policy maker ≠ utilitarian. You can still be a policy maker and enact policies for non-utilitarian (kritikal) reasons. For example, a few years back, Massachusetts sanctioned Burma, not because it would solve any problems with the tyrannical regime of Burma, but simply to take the moral stance that it would not associate itself with such governments. That is one of many example of policy makers acting in non-utilitarian ways. CON Case Contention 1 (Fairness) I’ll concede that a world without kritikal affs wouldn’t be unfair. I won’t be arguing in favor of this contention. PRO’s only arguments here are that kritikal affs are bad and thus would disadvantage the aff. That is not a harm in terms of fairness because any disadvantage of running Ks is one the aff willingly accepts by choosing to run that case despite any problems they see with it. It is not a harm forced upon them by the other team. Contention 2 (Education) PRO’s only argument here is not only a poor response but, in my opinion, a morally repugnant one. He says, “Policy is to help us understand and help alter the policies, but putting in morals does not belong.” We’ve seen far too many times in recent history what happens in policy makers do not constrain themselves by moral standards. What’s worse, some of the worst atrocities in history (most genocides, including the Holocaust, as well as most totalitarian regimes) have been the result of the leaders in charge foregoing basic moral responsibility in favor of successful political action. Morality should not just be A concern for policy makers; it should be THE concern. The most utilitarian regimes have been the most harmful and oppressive. That is a type of policy making I would be reluctant to support. Regardless, you can cross-apply here my point that most of us are not policy makers. Even if policy makers assume a utilitarian paradigm, we don’t have to. For us, philosophy is an important life concern.