1. KRITIKS
Melissa Witt

2. What is a Kritik? Philosophical in nature
Questions assumptions of the resolution
Questions assumption of plan
Challenges basic norms of the society

3. Types of Kritiks Language Race Feminist Ableism Power Dynamics
Anthropocentrism
Ecological
Other

4. Setting up a Kritik Determine the type your going to run
Read up on it – multiple authors
Parts of Kritik
Link (to the resolution or plan)
Rationale
Impacts
Alternative
Framework

5. Link
Just like a DA, your Kritik must apply to the case or resolution. This is where you set that up.
Evidence – unlike traditional policy evidence, this is philosophical in nature. You’re laying out the argument of the philosophy that you’re running.
1-2 cards for link

6. Rationale This is where you explain the Kritik
Evidence – 1-2 cards – establish the empirical verification of your claims – where has the truth of your claim manifested elsewhere in society or history?
Application – how does it work with plan or resolution in the same way

7. Impacts What impact does this Kritik have on the affirmative team
SOLVENCY – Kritiks always aim at taking out the solvency
Significance/Harms – they may address these stock issues as well, but typically the claim of a Kritik is that the SQ can’t solve because of the assumptions in the way.
Evidence – 2-4 cards – what do the thinkers say about solving these problems in lieu of the critical analysis

8. Alternative This step is optional
If the philosophical literature provides alternative methods to address the problems, you can run those
You have to watch your alternative to make sure that you don’t bite any of your own DA’s or whatever other arguments.

9. Framework This isn’t part of the Kritik-proper
Gives the judge a rationale for weighing the round.
Answers the questions: Why should I vote on the K? How should I evaluate the alternative? Etc.
Both teams can/should run FW arguments, particularly if you’re running traditional and hitting a K.

10. Framework
Interpretation – What the debate should be about (this is where you set up a Stock Issues paradigm, Policy-maker, or Kritikal defense).
Violation – How the other team violates (this will be pre-emptive if it’s run with a Kritikal Aff.)
Reasons to Prefer – Predictability, Limits, Education
Voters – Why the judge is voting for you

11. Answering Kritiks - CX
Are you criticizing the resolution or the my/our specific argumentation solution?
Follow-up – how do you link specifically to me/us?
What’s the story behind the kritik?
IS this a linguistic/race/??? Kritik?
Do you offer an alternative?
Explain your alternative.
Do you grant harms and critique the solutions, or does Kritik challenge the harms?
How do I/we increase harm according to the K?
Are you arguing that we should do nothing short of 100% solvency?

12. Answering Kritiks - Arguments
Permutation (Perm) – make a minor change to your position to address the kritikal claims and argue that it solves for the K.
No link – the kritik doesn’t link to your case/plan  
Philosophy-specific responses
This requires A LOT OF READING!!!
Read their author
Read critics of their author
Impacts
Show that the impacts will happen regardless of adoption
Show that impacts won’t happen if the judge votes for you
Show that impacts should have already happened if the kritikal analysis is correct
No Alternative – the negative is basically saying “we can’t solve for murder so murder laws are pointless”
We can address and solve part of the problem
We can improve despite our limitations
100% isn’t required to move in the right direction