Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

DefinitionsMy opponent seems to be focused on this issue, so let's resolve it using what has been said, as opposed to misrepresenting others. My opponent did not offer an alternative definition or an attempt to resolve any problems. Nor did he make clear his own disagreement in R1, as per the rules of debate & precedence, then decides to continue with a semantic argument. Further, my opponent states that he wants to avoid a semantics game through the Over-Broad definition fallacy. However, if one scrolls down the page even slightly, one will notice the second fallacy: the over-narrow definition fallacy. My opponent is defining the word literary criticism to refer to only Neo-Marxist theories. This case of definition would mean that the debate would be unwinnable for myself, as the definition of the word explicitly states it is post-Kant to begin with. This is a blatantly too specific definition, and moreover is squirreling. My opponent also states that Squirelling is a specifically obscure rule. However, he seems to concede that he has broken this rule, yet it's OK because "it's obscure" from Australia. Moreoever, I'm confused how the World School Debating hampionship is in Australia only, I can only imagine he read the author's based in New Zealand and thought that's in Australia, but still. It's jargon used in the WSDC and Parliamentary Debates, as well as ESU Mace standard debates. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(debate) It's definition is clear and accessible, and the rule was unchallenged, expressing acceptance. Therefore, this point still stands, and my opponent's attempt to go down the tangent of obscurity should be ignored. Furthermore, I contend that my definition is not overly broad, but rather fits the definition of what literary criticism is. Evidence as follows:Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)Literary criticism is the evaluation, analysis, description, or interpretation of literary works. (. http://www.ipl.org...)The art or practice of judging and commenting on the qualities and character of literary works (. http://oxforddictionaries.com...)criticism: a written evaluation of a work of literature(. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) Literary criticism is an interpretive strategy that focuses on the particularly literary qualities of a text. It is grounded in the understanding that a text should be read and interpreted using the categories appropriate to its genre. (. http://www.religion.emory.edu...)Literary criticism -comments and analysis written about a poem, play, short story, novel, or book. For example, you might be searching for books or articles written about Huckleberry Finn. (. http://www.lib.ua.edu...)The analysis and judgment of works of literature. (. http://www.smjuhsd.k12.ca.us...)The Private MessageMy opponent states that he said "I really don't want to go through four rounds of this". However, his statement (as observable here . http://tinypic.com...), he stated "I am not going through four rounds of this". The use of imperative shows explicitly he was not reluctant but willing, but in actuality was defiant and stubborn on this point (and continues through the pm). Again, my case is being misrepresented. The circular definitionsIgnoring the general discussion on the endless circle of definitions, I made it clear in the first round that critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. I then stated literary criticism is defined as "the criticism and evaluation of literature". My opponent states earlier that this definition is "over-broad definitionf fallacy", but here contradicts himself by clearly stating that I have never given a definition at all. To use my opponent's example, I would have defined fenacal chackel as "synonymous to chackel fenacal, that is, jumping up and down repeatedly", giving a very clear definition. The claim that I have not given a definition is clearly an attempt to clutch at straws to make his own case. I accept that, if one provides a definition simply by making things synonymous with one another, then one has not defined something, which leads onto the next point. More attempts to define Critical Theory as the debate Firstly, let's make this very clear:One may apply the neo-marxist Critical theory to literature to evaluate and criticse the literature. This makes it a type of literary criticism. Further, one may apply Queer theory to literature to evaluate and criticse the literature. This makes it a type of literary criticism. One may apply Aristotle's Poetics to literature to evaluate and criticse the literature. This makes it a type of literary criticism. To say that if it's not Critical theory, then it's not literary criticism is application of the following logic:I have stabbed someone with a dagger. As I am not using a sword, I must have not been using a weapon, and therefore I did not stab someone. Or, as ¬P, then ¬Q, when P & Q are independent of each other. Or, as I am not using critical theory, I am not using Aristotlean criticism. However, I am going to try and solve this even further in to the discussion. I'm going to now try and show, even if we ignore the illogical nature of the beginning of the argument, then we still have to conclude that literary criticism existed before 1781. So, let's delve into the theoretical level of the Fool's logic for a moment. Literary criticism is critical theory. In the same way as a shape with exactly three sides is a triangle. Therefore, critical theory is literary criticism, just as a triangle is a shape with exactly three sides. As such, my opponent is accepting that literary criticism is synonymous to critical theory, so if I find any examples of literary criticism, then my argument still stands. In short, according to my opponent, literary criticism is critical theory. Therefore, critical theory is literary criticism. Therefore, any examples of literary criticism is examples of critical theory. To summarise:My definition of literary criticism is not overly broad. My opponent's definition of literary criticism is overly narrow. My opponent has conceded he has broken rules involved in R1 which were accepted, and further still broken rules anyway. My opponent is criticising me of making a semantics game, but refuses to accept even the most basic and world-accepted definitions, and finally, even when we accept his unsubstantiated and just plain wrong definitions, we still see his case is flawed. Just as a final note, however, I wish to bring some things up:As we are not allowed to backlog, I ask my opponent to bring up where critical theory is referred to by Marx or Kant, and how the use of the term critique being firstly found in Kant and Marx. My opponent claims that my dating of books is wrong: I request him to justify this. My opponent states critical theory takes us out of the circle. But let me point out that the circle was not there to begin with. What's critical literature? Literary criticism. What's literary criticism? It's the criticism and evaluation of literature. Now, if we state that " criticism and evaluation of literature" is circularly relating back to Critical literature, then we have to accept that my opponent's definition simply refers back to "This version of "critical" theory. .. " to critical literature. In short, my opponent has made multiple unjustified claims, or claims that are purely wrong, as well as all of the other faults in the argumentation.