Kritiks

Kritiks

Overview

Kritiks, also known as Critiques or K's are arguments that isolate a particular aspect of the resolution or of an opponents case that is 'problematic.' Ks can focus on philosophy, sociology, being, identity, or even economics. K debate is considered strategic because critiques will often link to a variety of affirmatives on every topic and can be used to 'frame out' other positions. Ks can be leveraged as criticisms of an opponents entire methodology and thus can be used to indite the form of their arguments and even the way they are presented. For instance, some criticisms of general concepts like 'rule-making' or 'reason' can be used to respond to theory, truth testing role of the ballots, and framework arguments. K's are a very common style of debate in both LD and Policy.

Structure of Kritiks

All kritiks, no matter their literature base, follow a similar form. They start with the link, which isolates the specific issue with the affirmative's orientation, followed by the impact, which explains the problem with that orientation, ending with the alternative, which proposes an alternative strategy which avoids the affirmative's problem. Some kritiks also include a specific role of the ballot to tell the judge how they should be making their decision.

Link

The first part of the Kritik is the link. Most often, the link questions the epistemology, assumptions, or orientation of the affirmative. In rare cases, the link will be to the consequences of the affirmative, but links to the consequences of the affirmative are usually used in disadvantages.

An example of a link for the Capitalism Kritik on the January-February 2025 topic could be that becoming party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) reifies capitalism because an assumption of the affirmative is that Exclusive Economic Zones, which are a part of UNCLOS and where countries have the right to extract resources for their own ends, are capitalist because they treat the ocean as an economic resource.

Impact

The second part of the Kritik, is the impact which explains the impact to the harmful epistemology, assumptions, or orientation of the affirmative. Moreover, these impacts have the potential to "turn" the affirmative by making it difficult or sometimes impossible for the affirmative to solve their impacts.

An example of an impact to the Capitalism Kritik could be that capitalism causes global warming because capitalism does not hold companies accountable for pollution and incentivizes destroying the environment because it is profitable to do so.

This example have the ability to "turn" an affirmative that claims to solve the environment because absent solving capitalism environmental destruction is inevitable.

Alternative

The alternative is an advocacy that the negative forwards to solve the links and impacts that they have forwarded above.

An example of an alternative to the Capitalism Kritik is an alternative that advocates for a communist revolution. Explanations of alternatives most often require an explanation of what they do and how they solve the links and impacts of the Kritik. For example, the negative would claim that a communist revolution would entail overthrowing capitalist structures like corporations which would resolve the link and impact arguments because corporations would no longer be around to cause global warming.

Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge/Framework

Role of the Ballot, Role of the Judge or Framework (distinct from Philosophical Framework), is an argument about how the judge should evaluate the round.

Often times, framework is necessary to make the alternative mutually exclusive with the affirmative. A common argument that affirmatives will deploy is the "Permutation double bind" where they argue that we can do both the affirmative and the alternative because if the alternative can rectify a list of problems in the status quo, then it should also be able to rectify the links of the affirmative. Framework can answer the permutation double bind because if the negative makes an argument that we should be held responsible for the assumptions, epistemologies, and orientations that we forward, then we cannot do both the affirmative and the alternative because the affirmative's problematic assumptions are incompatible with the alternative.

Responding to Kritiks

There are a standard set of arguments you should know when responding to kritiks from a policy aff. These responses range from giving reasons why working within political institutions are good to specific reasons why the kritik's alternative will fail. The Policy vs Ks section explains more about responding to kritiks from a political perspective.

Non-Topical Affirmatives

Overview

Certain affirmatives will choose to not defend the topic in the form of a non-topical affirmative. These affirmatives will argue that defending the topic is itself problematic and provide an alternative reason why the judge should still vote for them. Non-topical affirmatives are typically rooted in critical literature and can be strategic since debaters can work through multiple topics to perfect their aff.

Critical Literature Bases

There are a core set of literature bases that are used in LD read both on the affirmative and negative side, categorized below.

Policy Kritiks

Capitalism Ks

Security Ks

Identity Kritiks

Afropess Ks

Setcol Ks

Disability Ks

Feminism Ks

Queer Theory Ks

Postmodern Kritiks

Psychoanalysis Ks

(Note: Lacan was not a post-modernist)

Virilio Ks

Deleuze Ks

Nietzsche Ks

Semiocapitalism Ks

Baudrillard Ks