Introduction to Kritiks

Kritiks

Kritiks, also known as Critiques or Ks, are some of the most run arguments on the circuit; however, understanding them can be somewhat challenging for the novice. We’ll break down to you what exactly a K is, parts of a K, and a brief introduction of how to respond to it. 

A Kritik is an argument that questions and critiques the underlying assumptions, representations, and epistemology of the AFF, rather than just the plan or the consequences of hypothetical implementation itself.  They typically isolate a particular part of the resolution or the case that is problematic, that can either focus on sociology, identity, philosophy, ontology, etc. They’re strategic because they often link into a lot of AFFs and because you can frame out the case with K Framework. But, most of all, they’re pretty fun to run.

Here are the parts of a Kritik - note that not all of them are absolutely needed.

Parts of a K

Theory of Power

A Theory of Power is essentially just a description of how the world is right now. It may serve in the form of ontology, the state of being, as well. It can be utilized as an impact/impact bolster or to frame out certain arguments, i.e. “conceding settler colonialism ontology means extinction is moot because the world will always be anti-Native.” A whole theory of power card is not necessarily needed however; warrants of the theory of power can be found in certain link cards. Here’s an example of an ontology card nevertheless.

Link

A link is the actual thing that is connecting the Kritik to the AFF, it is what you are critiquing. They question the epistemology and assumptions of the AFF - without a link, you’re not really critiquing anything. 

Alternative

The alternative is the methodology or the solution the NEG brings to solve for the impacts and links in the Kritik. Usually a Kritik can win through two ways - solvency or framework (explained more in-depth later) - if you can prove that the AFF’s assumptions are problematic, but your alternative can solve those assumptions (links being uniqueness), then you’ve got the AFF in a horrible spot. 

A common alternative is a simple refusal of the AFF; or sometimes, Kritiks may not have an alternative at all - they may solely rely on framework to win the K (a bit unstrategic though given that FW can establish mutual exclusivity with the AFF and the Alt). Here’s an example of an alternative card.

Framework

Kritiks have certain interpretations of how the ballot should be decided/how the judge should frame their decision to strategically frame out the AFF and win. The first primary motive of the framework is to establish that it shouldn’t only be the plan the debate should be centered around - it should be the epistemology and underlying assumptions of the Case. Secondly, as stated previously, framework can be a strategic tool to lend when confronted with a permutation on the alternative - because now you can articulate that links are a disadvantage to the perm given that we shouldn’t really weigh case anymore since our epistemology and underlying assumptions must come first.

Usually, the framework can be Role of the Ballot/Judge or Interpretations, and it really honestly depends on the Kritik you read. Your ROB wouldn’t be centering indigenous demands if you’re running a Baudrillard K. Some of the most common interpretations debaters read devolve into ‘You link you lose’ by justifying that the 1AC should be a research project - through subjectivity warrants or a microaggression approach (more on Ballot Solvency for Ks covered in later guides).

How to Respond to a K

One thing worth notice is that if you don’t understand a K or how it links to the AFF, make sure to ask in CX! Don’t worry, you won’t look stupid. 

Framework - Read a counter-interpretation/interpretation justifying that the hypothetical implementation of the plan and case ought to be weighed - this is the first thing you want to do because FW gives the K a huge advantage, If you win the AFF can weigh case with extinction outweighs, it will be hard for the K, because it’s no longer a debate centered around epistemology and underlying assumptions.

There are really two ways debaters justify their FW interpretation - theoretically and substantively. You may theoretically justify your interpretation saying that it produces the most fair and clash-inducing debates, and you may substantively justify your interpretation by saying things like policymaking education is good to liberate oppressed persons, or that it’s illogical to sever the plan out of the AFF and only focus on the underlying assumptions because the two are intertwined. There are obviously many other ways as well. More on this section will be in a later guide!

Please have a counter ROB! You do NOT want to concede the ROB, it gives them a huge advantage. Most common ROBs are either just the interpretations, better debater, and desirability of the AFF. 

Alternative - Now this depends on what AFF you’re running against the K - whether it be another K-AFF, Phil, Policy, etc. Usually, you want to make permutation arguments about competition and how you can do both or it might be better to do the AFF because the AFF and the alt are functionally the same thing. You may also make arguments that the Alt fails - which is something that depends on each round, i.e. a K-AFF going against a Cap K might say that Marxism and Socialist parties will leave out certain peoples. 

Link - This is pretty standard - link turn it, no-link it, etc. Remember to take CX if you don’t understand a link. When it comes to spreading yourself so you get everything on the flow that you need to respond to a Kritik and pave the way for a winning 2AR - I recommend at least putting some ink on the link page, but spend more time on the FW page just because the 2NR can end up collapsing to one link out of x many, but winning that you can weigh case often brings an uphill battle for the AFF, because they’re no longer guaranteed the “you link you lose” part. 

Theory of Power - Usually, you need a carded response to respond to this, it’s quite simply just proving that the theory of power isn’t true. You want to make sure you respond to any sort of root cause claims and preferably any ontology or psychoanalytic claims, i.e. responding to settler colonialism ontology that progress is possible, because it can help prove that the perm is a good idea because it can achieve some ‘progress’.

K-AFFs

Now Kritiks can also be run on AFF - but it’s not like… linking to a NC that hasn’t even been said. 

We will have a better, more in-depth guide on K-AFFs in the intermediate section, so stay tuned!