Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

Before making my argument, I wish to remind the readers that in R2 it was stated that "as my opponent wishes to shorten the debate (as stated in comments and private message), we'll cancel this round in order to address any maladies." In response, my opponent posted his own argument. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that these maladies have been conceded, and the definition's disagreements dropped. The argument shall continue.Firstly, I accept that the definition of a criticism shall become atemporal, and, as my opponent seems to not enjoy suggest a definition, I expect that he is referring to the definition that we accepted in R1 - "Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism, or the criticism and evaluation of literature." of which my opponent stated "I accept this definition", explicitly remarking "Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism". Therefore, any work which is seen as "the critcism and evaluation of literature" before 1781 proves my case. Following on from this, I shall make my own argument first. Well, I say arguments, I just have to provide examples of cases where literary criticism exists before 1781, the time of writing of A Critique of Pure Reason. Examples: Discorso in Difesa Della Commedia Della Divino Poeta Dante (The Discourse in Defense of the Comedy of the Divine Poet Dante) is a defence (or addressal) of Dante's Divine Comedy's criticism, and evaluates the strength of the work. Anti-Machiavel in 1739 was a direct response which criticises The Prince. This is a "criticism and evaluation of literature". http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com...;In defense of the Fool by Gaunilo is a direct response to evaluate and criticise Proslogian. Furthermore, an analysis from 1726 of Shakespeare's work (http://sceti.library.upenn.edu...) directly states he is criticising Shakespeare's work. The following is a direct list of criticisms of Shaksepare's work and their date (http://pages.unibas.ch...) Ascham, Roger. The Scholemaster, 1570 [http://darkwing.uoregon.edu...] Carew, Richard. The Excellency of the English Tongue, 1595-6 [http://www.library.utoronto.ca...] Gascoigne, George. Certayne Notes of Instruction, 1575, in complete works: [http://leehrsn.stormloader.com...] Harrison, William. Harrison's Description of England in Shakespeare's Youth (1575) ed. Furnivall, Frederick (1877). [http://web.archive.org...*/http://leehrsn.50megs.com...] (May 2002) Lodge, Thomas. A Defense of Poetry, 1579: Thomas Lodge page [http://www.accd.edu...] Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia, 1598; Comments on Shakespeare in Palladis Tamia [http://shakespeare.palomar.edu...] Nashe, Thomas. Anatomie of Absurdity, 1589 [http://www.luminarium.org...] Puttenham, George, The Arte of English Poesie, 1589 [http://www.library.utoronto.ca...] Sidney, Sir Philip An Apologie for Poetrie, 1583/95 permission needed: [http://www-vms.uoregon.edu...] Sidney page [http://www.accd.edu...] I could probably continue providing evidence and citation, but the disagreement lies elsewhere. The hypocrisy of the fool, and the power of the squirrel. My opponent criticises me for using "lexical semantic games" (good to see you learnt a new word, but lexical means semantic; you've said the equivalent of a blue blue sky) although I haven't spoken yet, but then defines critical literature as meaning critical theory: this is acceptable. However, critical literature (or literary criticism) has been defined in R1 as 'the criticism and evaluation of literature'. This means one of two things: Either critical theory is a red herring, and irrelevant to the discussion (unlikely) or the more likely: My opponent is attempting to have "distort...the definition [of the word 'critical literature'] to enable a team to argue a pre-prepared argument that it wishes to debate regardless of the motion actually set", also known as squirelling (http://www.schoolsdebate.com...). Squirreling is against the rules, as stated clearly in R1: "Furthermore, no squirelling in debate". Therefore, my opponent has broken agreed upon rules. Furthermore, even if we accept this as not squirelling, then it is an irrelevancy. The debate is about Critical literature, or literary criticism, as per the title of the debate and R1 definitions respectively. My opponnent is attempting to construct a red herring in order to debate critical theory, not critical literature. The difference between the my definition and the first definition is blatant and large enough to show that critical theory is an irrelevancy to a debate. The second definition is expressed in greater detail in the link provided: "This form of critical theory is not necessarily oriented toward radical social change or even toward the analysis of society, but instead focuses on the analysis of texts. Literary scholars first used this term in the 1960s and 1970s, and the term has only come into broad use since the 1980s, especially as theory used in literary studies has increasingly been influenced by European philosophy and social theory." This shows that this is just one form of critical theory, and, if critical theory is to remain synonymous with literary criticism, then just a small part of literary criticism. Therefore, there are other types of criticism which can exist. My opponent tries to combat this by saying I am being overly broad with my definitions, however these definitions are those accepted in round one, and I explicitly stated "Acceptance of the debate with no disagreement on definition means we both accept the definitions, and shall not challenge said definitions after the first round." My opponent did not challenge my definition to the phrase "critical literature", so he is trying to break agreed upon rules. Finally, although this is not relevant to any argument, my opponent stated explicitly that one cannot use "back labelling", yet uses a "neo-marxist examination" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) to prove his argument. This would then be a case of "back labelling", as Kant certainly did not refer to himself as a Neo-Marxist. I'm not sure why, but it's probbly got something to do with Neo-Marxism being a fair few years after Kant died. To conclude, there are many examples of literary criticism prior to 1781. My opponent is guilty of breaking the rules by squirelling definitions. Even if we ignore his squirelling, we are left with his definition being a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion, or he is discussing only a specific part of critical literature, and I am talking about different parts. Finally, he has, in fact, broken his own rules through "back-labelling" definitions, or post-humously labelling definitions. Finally, I urge that when judging on conduct one takes into consideration the repeated unjustified ad hom on myself and not my argument. Evidence as follows: "Expect nothing more than lexical semantic games in the next rounds."