I think kritiks are generally poorly defined and poorly responded to. They’re the type of argument most teams are weak at. At its core, a Kritik is an off-case argument that the negative team runs. It challenges the viewpoint or lens the affirmative team sees. 

Instead of refuting the affirmative team’s plan, Kritiks ask why we think the way we do and whether the system we live in is inherently flawed. Think of it like taking a step back from the policy and zooming out. The Kritik isn't just asking whether the plan is effective; it's asking whether the thinking behind the plan is harmful.

A common Kritik, the cap K (capitalism Kritik), questions capitalism, arguing that capitalism itself creates harm. That harm could be racism, environmental destruction, or any number of systems of oppression. The Kritik isn’t about a single policy decision; it’s about a mindset that fuels cycles of injustice.

What’s an impact?

An impact is one of the three key components of a Kritikal argument. It's the "so what" — the real-world consequence of letting harmful thinking continue unchallenged. Without an impact, your Kritik doesn’t explain why the judge should care.

The structure of a Kritik typically includes:

The link — This is how the affirmative team’s argument or plan is tied to the system your Kritik is critiquing. You’re pointing out that the plan reinforces or participates in a structure like capitalism, patriarchy, or colonialism.

The impact — This is the real-world harm caused by that structure. For example: climate change, systemic violence, exploitation, etc. The point is that the structure the aff supports doesn’t just exist in theory — it causes tangible suffering.

The alternative — This is the negative team's solution or response to the structure. It might be a mindset shift, a change in how we engage with knowledge, or even a total rejection of the aff’s framing. Alternatives range from concrete actions to conceptual ones like “becoming a living library” or “rethinking security.”

When teams first encounter Kritiks, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed or confused. But at their core, Kritiks are just structured arguments. If you break them into link, impact, and alt, they become way more manageable.

You can think of a Kritik as zooming out. Rather than saying “this plan is bad because X will happen,” the Kritik says, “this plan is bad because it relies on a flawed worldview that caused X to begin with.” It’s kind of like debating the lens instead of the view. You’re attacking how the affirmative sees the world and why that worldview may replicate violence, oppression, or marginalization.

Isn’t this just a disadvantage and a counterplan?

Yes... and no.

Kritiks and traditional off-case arguments like disadvantages or counterplans might look similar on the surface, but their focus is different. Disadvantages criticize the effects of the plan. Counterplans offer different policy options. Kritiks, however, challenge the assumptions behind the plan.

A disadvantage says, “Your plan causes war.” A counterplan says, “Here’s a better plan.” A Kritik says, “The way you're thinking causes war.”

For example:

A counterplan might say, “Instead of creating a carbon tax, we should use subsidies to fund renewable energy research.” It’s still working within the same system, but taking a different route.

A Kritik might say, “Instead of creating a carbon tax, we should reject capitalism altogether, because capitalism is the reason we have climate change in the first place.” The goal isn’t to tweak the system; it’s to reject it.

This distinction matters. It’s challenging how we make decisions in the first place.

Answering the Kritik

Affirmatives can feel lost when hit with a Kritik, but there are clear ways to respond. The goal is to ground the debate again and keep the round from becoming a philosophy lecture.

Framework — This is about how the judge should evaluate the round. The aff can argue that the judge should prioritize concrete policy outcomes instead of abstract theory. Framework is important because it gives you a way to weigh your plan’s benefits even if the neg is talking about big-picture structures.

Case outweighs — Affirmatives can argue that the impact of their plan is more important than the Kritik’s impact. If your plan saves lives or solves a pressing issue, you can argue that those benefits outweigh the structural harms the Kritik identifies. Kritiks often shift the round away from the aff case — don’t let them. Center your impacts and explain why they matter more.

Permutation — This is where you say the plan and the alternative can happen together. It tests whether the Kritik’s alternative is actually competitive. If the judge agrees they can coexist, then the Kritik doesn’t function as a reason to reject the plan. Remember to clearly say “perm do both” if you use this strategy. Teams have lost rounds just by forgetting to say that.

Impact turn — You can argue that the impact the Kritik identifies is actually a good thing. If they say capitalism causes hierarchy, and you say hierarchy is necessary for progress or innovation, that’s an impact turn. It’s risky, but when it’s strategic, it works.

Alternative solvency/disadvantages — You can argue that the Kritik’s alternative doesn’t solve the harm, or it creates new problems. If the Kritik says “Reject capitalism,” ask what that actually looks like in practice. If their alternative is just “think differently,” press them on whether that really solves anything. Ask what rejecting capitalism means for people relying on capitalist systems to survive. If the alternative causes more harm than the plan, use that to your advantage.

Kritiks can seem intimidating. They use academic language and unfamiliar concepts. But underneath all that, they are just arguments with a structure that you can understand and challenge. If you're negative, explain your Kritik like you're teaching it. If you're affirmative, don't panic; break it down and respond step by step. You don’t need to out-philosophize your opponent. You just need to make your argument make sense.