Released: Filed Under: Stoa Lincoln-Douglas
About "Resolutional Kritik (NEG)"
This case is a Resolutional Critique, or what is commonly called a Rez K (the “K” comes from the Greek spelling “Kritik”). A Critique just means that you’re opposing the resolution not by saying that the negative side is better, necessarily, but that affirming the resolution really doesn’t make sense.
You do that by exposing the inconsistencies that the judge would have to accept in order to vote affirmative. First, that assimilation and multiculturalism are often not in conflict. Second, that promoting assimilation often backfires, creating minority cultures that more tenaciously hold to their own principles and more fervently resist assimilation.
There are two weaknesses in this case. The first is that assimilation and multiculturalism are sometimes in conflict, so the affirmative has grounds to argue that in those cases, the resolution is logical, we should restrict the debate to those cases, and in those cases we should value assimilation. To defend against this, argue that in the majority of cases, assimilation and multiculturalism are not in conflict, so in the majority of cases the resolution is illogical. In the few cases where the resolution does make sense, valuing assimilation is a counterproductive strategy that shouldn’t be supported.
The second weakness in this case is that assimilation and integration are not always the same thing. Contention 2 heavily relies on evidence that equates assimilation and integration, and sociologists don’t always use those terms as synonyms. Here are a couple things that can help you shore up this definitional vulnerability.
Most affirmative cases either use assimilation and integration synonymously, or imply that assimilation is good because it leads to integration. If the affirmative you’re opposing is of the former variety, your argument here is made for you by the affirmative’s word choice. If your opponent’s case is of the latter variety, then you can keep your argument virtually the same, with a slight difference: even if assimilation and integration are two slightly different sociological terms, the affirmative case tries to increase integration through assimilation, and my case clearly demonstrates how that strategy is ineffective.
Overall, your mission is to show how voting affirmative doesn’t make any sense on two different levels: first, because the resolution itself doesn’t make sense, and secondly (and more specifically) because the affirmative side of the resolution doesn’t make sense. Thus, affirming any part of the resolution is a bad idea, and negative ballot is the best course of action.
- Download the document with the button above. Study this release and get to know it well. File and print as necessary to prepare for your upcoming competition.
- This download is exclusively for Monument Members. Any use outside this membership is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law and violators will be prosecuted.
- As always, double check all claims, warrants, hyperlinks and the current news in case any changes have occurred that will affect your competition.
- Do you have questions about this download? Tap in your comment at the bottom of the page. The author, the site owner, or another member will most likely reply.
Permission & Usage
Click Here for complete information on permissions. All Membership content and Library Archives are proprietary intellectual content, so please respect our copyrights. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member or a Library Access Owner you may not use it or share its content. If one partner of a debate team is a member and the other is not, the one who is a Monument Member must be the controller of the logins, downloads and incorporation of the Monument Membership material. Sharing logins is strictly prohibited, the only exception being from immediate family members within a single household.