What are Kritiks?
A Kritik (K) is an argument that the affirmative’s assumptions, representations or methodology is undesirable. Kritiks are unique because they shift the very focus of the debate – rather than focusing on the hypothetical implementation of the plan, the debate is about how the affirmative has approached the debate. Hence, they do not fulfill the role of the negative – most of the time, Kritiks do not prove that the plan is a bad idea, but simply that the assumptions or ideologies of the affirmative are bad. However, some Kritiks will argue that the assumptions inform how the plan is implemented and lead to the plan being undesirable in some way.
Structure of a Kritik
Kritiks are typically structured as follows:
- Link – an assumption or flawed mindset that the aff is making/using.
- Impact – the reason why that assumption/mindset is bad.
- Alternative – how this harm can be solved. Alternatives are a tricky part of the Kritik and can look like a lot of different things:
- Sometimes, the alternative is actionable. For example, while running a Kritik of capitalism (called the “cap K”), the alternative could be a socialist revolution.
- Sometimes, the alternative is simply a different way of thinking. For example, while running the cap K, an alternative could be to vote negative to challenge capitalist in the debate space and promote socialism, we can break down the conditions that make socialism seem impossible and capitalism inevitable.
- Sometimes, there is no alternative.
- Framework – this is typically introduced in the 2NC, and explains what the role of the judge is. This is how negative teams shift the focus of the debate.