Beyond the Resolution: The Transformative Power of Identity Kritiks in Debate

A Cuban student criticizes the Resolved powerfully: The United States federal government should substantially expand its surveillance infrastructure along its southern border. As they argue the affirmative, their mind races – thoughts of family members separated, of communities under surveillance, of a history of intervention in Latin America in the name of free-market “freedom” – all of these experiences inform their understanding of this seemingly simple policy proposal echoed in conservative news outlets as a “national security imperative”. Likewise, a Black student reads another; it’s about rehabilitation. They speak different words yet holding the same tune of mass incarceration, of the disproportionate targeting of Black communities by law enforcement, of the pessimism that stems from these repetitive, almost cyclical acts of violence. These are not just abstract policy debates that are over in forty-minutes' time; they are deeply personal reflections, shaped by lived experiences of oppression and resistance of both the authors they cite, and the one reading the kritik themself.

This is what is now-referred to as “identity kritiks,” frequently dismissed as overly theoretical or divisive, serve as potent tools for navigating this complex terrain. They move beyond surface-level arguments, delving into the deeper, often uncomfortable truths about how power structures – particularly those related to race, gender, class, and sexuality – shape and constrain our understanding of the world.

Firstly, identity kritiks function as potent tools for the disruption of the way we know things. In other words, they challenge the dominant narratives and knowledge frameworks that often privilege the perspectives of those in power. “Traditional” debate (and its underlying structure), with its emphasis on policy proposals and quantitative data, as well as values that are criticized for benefiting a few and leaving out some marginalized group, frequently prioritizes certain types of arguments and evidence, inadvertently privileging the perspectives of those who have the power to generate and disseminate such data. Identity kritiks disrupt this epistemological hegemony by introducing marginalized voices and experiences. They question the very foundations of debate – the assumptions about what constitutes "good" evidence, what constitutes a "legitimate" argument, and whose voices are considered authoritative.

This disruption is not merely an academic exercise that is read to “win” a debate round; it is a crucial step towards dismantling the foundations of oppression in the one space where a judge and opponent are forced to adjudicate and listen, respectively, where voices are not only allowed to speak freely, but subsequently heard. Just as debaters strive to expose flaws in an opponent's argumentation, identity kritiks expose the flaws in the very systems of thought that uphold inequality, a structure that philosophy-focused events like Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD) are premised upon. They compel us to question the foundational assumptions underlying traditional value debate, revealing how privilege and unexamined biases shape our understanding of fairness, education, and what counts as legitimate argumentation, straying away from the arguably repetitive “extinction-first” arguments that steal discussion and an open forum from its real, more probable impacts on marginalized communities, if not extinction. All in all, this process of “epistemological disruption” is not always comfortable, and for good reason; it often, if not always, requires us to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves and the world around us.

Secondly, identity kritiks serve as crucial sites for the articulation of lived experience and the demands of marginalized communities, ideas that are crucial in policymaking beyond far-fetched nuclear war or extinction-first-focused scenario-planning. They provide a platform for marginalized voices to articulate their unique experiences, struggles, and aspirations on a platform built by its founders for sharing ideas (that is, the debate space). By centering these voices, identity kritiks not only expose the injustices faced by marginalized communities but also offer powerful visions for a more just and equitable future. This articulation of lived experience is essential for building solidarity, fostering empathy, and mobilizing collective action towards social change.

Picture a debate round where a resolution proposes increased funding for border patrol. A Black debater might employ an identity kritik to challenge this resolution, not simply by arguing against its logistical feasibility or its potential low-risk outcomes, but by exposing how it reinforces a system of racialized border control that criminalizes Black and Brown immigrants, perpetuates cycles of violence, and undermines the very principles of human dignity. This kritik, which might be quick to be called “pessimist” in nature, doesn't merely oppose the resolution on the wrong side as a plethora of topicality arguments may state; it instead exposes the underlying power dynamics that inform its existence, forcing the round to confront the real-world consequences of its proposed policies for marginalized communities and identities, as well as effectively using its tool as the affirmative to favor a praxis, much more suited to changing cyclical violence that strategically uses the resolution to expose and subvert the systemic oppressions that underpin the topic and discourse surrounding it.

Similarly, consider a resolution grounded in capitalist principles that might seem to advocate for change. A Latinx debater might utilize an identity kritik to contest this resolution, not merely by arguing against its economic implications, but by pointing to the historical exploitation of Latin America by Western powers, revealing its underpinnings and peeling away its bad intentions. This identity-focused criticism exposes how these principles often serve to perpetuate economic inequality and disenfranchisement for Latinx communities globally, as well as serving as a testament for all marginalized groups through the readings of the competitor’s, highlighting the ways in which seemingly neutral economic policies are deeply embedded within a history of colonialism and oppression.

These examples that I have seen, along with many other fellow debaters, demonstrate the transformative potential of identity kritiks, and the possibility of expansions of readings in debate. They compel us to move beyond abstract arguments and engage with the lived realities of those who are most impacted by the policies and systems we debate. By centering the experiences and perspectives of marginalized groups, identity kritiks challenge us to question our assumptions, confront our biases, and strive for a more just world, free of violent structures, through policymaking, a complex and contentious process necessary for imagining better futures.

Furthermore, the skills developed through engaging with identity kritiks – critical analysis, nuanced argumentation, and an understanding of power dynamics and how “the Academy”/academia functions – are invaluable for navigating the complexities of capitalist structures and sparking activism in the real world, beyond the debate round and even the space itself. Whether pursuing careers in law, politics, Academia, or any other field, debaters who have engaged with these readings in the debate space will be better equipped to analyze complex social issues, advocate for marginalized communities through the debater’s own, and contribute to a more equitable society through using a resolution to reveal that a system’s inner goals in subjugating minoritarian and historically marginalized identities in violent structures of power.

Overall, some may view identity kritiks as divisive or overly theoretical, destroying procedural fairness or education, they have become essential tools for cultivating critical thinking, fostering empathy, and preparing debaters to become effective agents of social change, which many can argue is the essence of debate itself, begging the question if identity politics can become a rather necessary aspect of the debate space and policy-oriented activism. By embracing the challenges presented by identity kritiks, the debate space can become a more just, equitable, and intellectually stimulating environment for all participants. 

----

Further reading and resources:

• Alcoff, Linda Martín. Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self. United States of America, Oxford UP (Studies in Feminist Philosophy), 2006.

• Johnson, Devon R. Black Nihilism and Antiblack Racism. Living Existentialism, 2023.

• Mitchell, Audra, and Aadita Chaudhury. “Worlding Beyond ‘The’ ‘End’ of ‘The World’: White Apocalyptic Visions and BIPOC Futurisms.” International Relations, vol. 34, no. 3, Aug. 2020, pp. 309–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820948936.

• Noel, Hannah. Deflective Whiteness: Coopting Black and Latinx Identity Politics. 2022.