How to Respond to the Kritik

Shaurya Ganjoo is a 3rd year varsity debater from Ridge High School that has competed in a variety of events. He currently competes in varsity Lincoln Douglass Debate, and is the 7th highest ranked debater in New Jersey.

What is the K?

Critical arguments, or the Kritik, are the boogeyman of novice debate. There are numerous reasons why people view it that way, but the main one is because people don’t treat it like a normal argument, but instead as something that is far too theoretical and confusing. In reality, a Kritik isn’t that different from a traditional contention or advantage/disadvantage that debaters read on the aff or neg. In simple terms, the Kritik is an argument that challenges existing structures of the world that influence how we understand and make decisions, as well as how we interact with the environment. Think of it like a contention on how the world works, or like the structure of the world.

Kritiks usually follow the same format as normal contention with a few slight differences. Like a contention, they have uniqueness, links, and impacts. Unlike contentions, however, they also have a role in the ballot and the alternative. But before we get into that, let’s understand what the K (or short for Kritik) is.

Every critical argument has a thesis, which is called the theory of power. Essentially, the theory of power questions what specific structures are in place that allow for the K to exist. For example, a Kritik on capitalism says that the proletariats (the working class) are exploited by the bourgeoisie (the ruling class) as they have control over the means of production. The structure that allows for the bourgeoisie to maintain power is capitalism and the K critiques that. Similarly, other Kritiks have their respective theory of power and understanding that is imperative for responding to the K itself.

Kritiks may also have an alternative, which is another position instead of doing the affirmative such that it resolves the harms of the aff and fixes the issues that the neg points out. It would be the other debater’s burden to prove why the alternative doesn’t work.

A lot of Kritiks will also have a role of the ballot or a role of the judge. Essentially, the argument establishes what the outcome of the round should be, i.e. what is the method that the judge should use to evaluate this round. Usually, debaters will have a role of the ballot that is self-serving. For example, if a debater is reading a K on capitalism, then their role of the ballot could be to vote for the debater that best deconstructs capitalism in the debate space. Obviously, their opponent won’t meet the role of the ballot, so it gives an advantage to the debater who reads it. They do have an obligation to justify why their role of the ballot matters, however, and if the other debater drops that argument, even if they are winning substance, they still could lose since they don’t deconstruct capitalism in the debate space. That means it is really imperative to always argue against the role of the ballot.

To some degree, the K must relate to the real world. You can always ask the other debater during cross what the K actually is, and how the issue it critiques is harmful in the real world. Especially when you come across a K that doesn’t make any sense, these questions are really important. If they can’t explain their K to you, chances are the Judge probably won’t understand it either. 

On top of that, there is another thing that Ks usually have, and that is called post-fiat and pre-fiat impacts. For simplicity, think of it like this– post-fiat impacts are the material changes in the real world, i.e. saving people from dying, preventing nuclear war, benefitting the economy, and such. Essentially they are things that happen after the affirmative is passed. Pre-fiat impacts are things that happen in the debate round. Debaters argue that these arguments are pretty important since voting aff or neg won’t actually lead to these policies being passed, but reading different Ks can give you in-round education, which is something that people can take away from debate. A K debater might argue that pre-fiat impacts are more important since that’s the only skill that you actually get from a debate round and that we have to restructure the model of debate in some way. Cross-examination is your best friend, and make sure to use this time to understand what the Kritik says. 

How do I respond to the K?

When responding to the K, there are a few things that you always want to be careful about. Let’s tackle it as the affirmative and as the negative.

If you are the affirmative, and you hit a K in the 1NC, then in cross-examination, you need to ask them how the K links into the affirmative. If the neg can’t tell you how it links into the affirmative, then the K essentially doesn’t matter. The reason for that is that even if the K is independently a good idea, insofar as it doesn’t link to the affirmative, it doesn’t make the affirmative a bad idea. That makes your job a lot easier since all you have to do is prove the affirmative is a good idea because of material impacts, and you’ve won the round. If the K does link in, however, then it’s a bit more difficult. You can read a link turn in the 1ar, which basically says that they hold the link to their own K, and that the affirmative fixes the impact of the K instead of causing the impact. An impact turn is another argument that you could hypothetically make, but I strongly suggest most novice debaters not do that. For example, if your opponent reads an argument that says all queer people have become socially dead because of how debate is structured, and you impact turn that argument, you’re now saying that queer people being socially dead is a good thing, which is a morally abhorrent argument to make. You might make these mistakes by accident, and it could cost you the round. Also, if you do both a link turn and an impact turn, you double-turn yourself and say that although the impact is good, the aff doesn’t actually lead to it, so make sure not to do both.

Make sure to see whether the K says anything about pre-fiat impacts. The best way to respond to those arguments is to say that mimicking policymakers is better since that helps shape students and allows them to hold discussions on topics and that their K is neither new nor revolutionary, which means that it can’t alter the debate space. Say that the K has been read before, but hasn’t managed to change the status quo at all and that someone could get the same education about the K by picking up a textbook, but having these arguments about government policies is something that you only get within the debate space. 

Next, look out for ways to perm the K. Perm stands for permutation, and it allows the affirmative to do their policy position while simultaneously doing the negative’s alternative. Most of the time, the negative’s alternative isn’t mutually exclusive with the affirmative, so then the negative has to prove why the perm doesn’t work. If the negative drops the perm, that means that there really is no net benefit to the K and that its better to the affirmative. Some examples of perms are “Perm do the affirmative with the mindset of the negative”, “Perm do both”, “Perm do the affirmative then the negative” and things like that. Reading multiple permutations is also a strong way to have multiple different links to solving for the K.

Similarly, most of the time, the Kritik doesn’t really do anything. You could say that the alternative of the K fails since it either doesn’t solve the affirmative’s post-fiat impacts, or it doesn’t solve the issues that it raises. The affirmative could say something like “the world that we propose is better since at least we solve for these material impacts, but the negative functaionlly does nothing.”

A combination of all these arguments is important and will help you win the debate. If you are negative, and the opponent reads a K affirmative, then responding to it is a tiny bit different. You don’t have access to permutations anymore, but you do get access to a new argument. You can read a Topicality shell, which is a lot like a theory shell. It’s too much to explain in this article, so the sparknotes explanation is that it just says the Affirmative isn’t topical and is debating outside the confines of the resolution, which takes away the negative ground and makes it hard for them to engage in the round. It’s basically a glorified “no-link” argument, except that it says the aff has no link to the resolution. However, the rest is pretty similar and relatively easy to respond to.

Although Kritik may seem challenging to respond to, it helps to think of them as similar to contentions, or disadvantages. Don’t overthink a Kritik, and treat it just like normal arguments that you debate. Most people don’t read highly complex kritiks, and even when they do, they likely don’t understand it well enough to explain it to themselves or the judge, which makes your job easier.

The best way to respond to kritiks is by drilling against them and having multiple rounds. Although it may initially seem difficult, it gets easier as you begin to realize that all kritiks follow one repetitive pattern.

There are great definitions for terms like fiat, and more specific links and permutations in wikipedia that I’ve linked below. I encourage you to check it out to get a better understanding of specific arguments you can read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Fiat

This marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.