The Kritik

Ks

Basics

Explanation

Kritik comes from German, meaning to criticize It is an argument that challenges the philosophical or linguistic assumptions of the Affirmative case (taken for granted) Example: Why would it be wrong to say mankind when referring to human beings? “You Guys?”

Structure of the K

Kritiks usually include a framework debate or a question regarding what the debate is about

Kritiks often say the debate is not about a utilitarian framework (Lifeboat Ethics)

The debate might be about educating people or about how to best use language

Parts of the K

Link: The link explains how the affirmative commits the same harmful action, logic, or mindset the kritik criticizes.

Impact: This is the “so what” part of the K.

Alternative: The alt is your counter-model; it’s what you propose instead of the aff’s plan.

Example

Framework:  The judge is not a policy maker—the judge is a critical intellectual assessing the assumptions of the affirmative

Link:  The plan upholds the profit motive of capitalism—curtailing domestic surveillance merely individualizes capitalist technologies and further privatizes human life

Impact:  Capitalism is the root cause of surveillance—extinction is inevitable unless we challenge capitalism.

Alternative:  The judge should intellectually withdraw support from the system of capitalism

Answering the K (STOP)

Solvency

Solvency: Alt doesn’t solve

The best way to beat a Kritik is to show that the alternative does not solve the affirmative's harms, then prove that the affirmative's impacts outweigh the Kritik. Focus on pragmatism by arguing that the judge should evaluate what can realistically be done within the round. Emphasize specificity by explaining that the alternative fails to address the concrete harms the affirmative resolves. For example, if the case reduces domestic surveillance, ask why challenging capitalism would solve that issue. If the alternative cannot fix the problem, the affirmative becomes the better option because it offers a clear, practical solution.

Theory

Theory: Defend your framework

Framework is usually the most important theory argument in a debate round. You should argue that debate should focus only on policy and that the affirmative must defend the resolution as a policy action. Since the resolution is written as a policy resolution, affirmatives should not be allowed to abandon it for vague philosophies or discursive arguments. This ties into fairness—there are an infinite number of kritiks and alternative worldviews, which makes it impossible for the negative to prepare if affirmatives are not bound by a stable plan.

You should argue that the judge must weigh the affirmative’s solvency and impacts. Vague alternatives can still be useful, often functioning as solvency deficits to the kritik. In cross-examination, ask if the alternative can ever do the affirmative. If the answer is yes, then ask why the alternative is inconsistent with the plan. This frames the alternative as either unnecessary or self-contradictory.

Offense

Offense: Prove why your affirmative is a good idea, and their theory is a bad one

The best way to generate offense against a Kritik is to directly challenge the theory behind it. You can argue that systems like capitalism or neoliberalism are beneficial, citing examples such as economic growth, innovation, and poverty reduction. Another approach is to indict the Kritik’s authors or theoretical foundations. For instance, if the Kritik relies on Heidegger, you can argue that his philosophy contributed to or aligned with Nazi ideology, which undermines the credibility and ethical grounding of the argument. Turning the K on its own framework helps you shift the debate in your favor and forces the negative to defend the very ideas they are critiquing.

Perms

Perms: Combine the affirmative and the alternative

Don’t forget the permutation. It is one of the strongest tools against a Kritik. You should argue for "do both," which means the judge should endorse the plan along with all parts of the alternative that are not mutually exclusive. This tests whether the Kritik actually competes with the affirmative or if the two can work together. Another version is "do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative," which specifically combines the policy action with any part of the alternative that does not contradict it. If the alternative can already do the plan, then even "do the alternative" is a valid option because it shows there is no meaningful difference between the two and no reason to reject the affirmative.