Kritik
Encyclopedia
In policy debate
(As well, though less commonly, in LD debate) , a kritik (derived from German
Kritik, meaning critique
and traditionally pronounced as "critique", and often abbreviated K) is generally a type of argument
that challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory
; it is often spelled in the normal English critique or is sometimes called a criticism, and takes the adjective form kritikal (meaning and pronounced as "critical").
A kritik can either be deployed by the negative team to challenge the affirmative advocacy or by the affirmative team to indict the status quo
or the negative advocacy. Although many teams in pre-merger Cross Examination Debate Association
debates advocated philosophical objections to plans and resolutions for several years prior to the advent of the "Kritik," the argument was more self-consciously developed by NDT
teams at The University of Texas, coached by Bill Shanahan. Bill Shanahan and his good friend Mr. Stafford "shane stafford" created the anarchism CP that at the end had a vote neg on ontology and this started labor movements leading to an existing "single-citizen" argumentation paradigm which called for the judge to vote a single citizen's conscience rather than adopting the role of the federal government.
The Shanahan kritik is more a decision calculus than the kritiks which emerged on the college circuit in the early 1990s on the nature of language's intrinsic ambiguity. Early innovators of the kritik included CEDA teams from Cal State-Chico, Southwestern College (Kansas) and the University of Missouri-Kansas City. These pre-merger debaters combined elements of traditional "value objection" and criteria-based non-policy arguments with postmodern, metaphysical, and philosophical perspectives to create a powerful, though often amorphous, negative strategy. Though kritiks are now found generally in policy debate
, their usage is also increasingly found in Lincoln-Douglas debate
and NPDA and NPTE parliamentary debate
.
in that it includes a link and an impact or implication. Unlike the disadvantage, however, it excludes uniqueness and includes an alternative. This structure has inspired some in the debate community to question whether a kritik is "just a non-unique disadvantage." Disadvantages, however, usually assume a consequentialist
/utilitarian
paradigm of impact analysis, while kritiks employ different decision-making frameworks. There is, however, no hard and fast rule regarding the structure of a kritik. In fact, a rejection of traditional argument structure may actually be at the very heart of kritiks. The "reductionism" kritik utilized by Southwestern College in the early 90s, for instance, maintained that the cartesian, linear thinking patterns utilized in academic debate were sufficiently damaging to warrant rejection.
—that the affirmative does not uniquely lead to the impact. Instead, the typical kritikal link is one of re-entrenching the philosophy or mindset to be criticized by the argument, be it biopower
/biopolitics
, racism
, militarism
, realism in international relations
, patriarchy
, statism
, imperialism
/Orientalism, capitalism
, gendered language, or other objectionable systems of thought and action.
, genocide
, and totalitarianism
. Other kritiks, such as those of language, racism, and those advocating Objectivism
typically claim deontological
impacts; that is, the positive effects of the affirmative are unimportant compared to the ethical damage it does. However, these are generalities and, for instance, a kritik of biopower may simply argue that, from a deontological perspective, a judge has a moral imperative
to reject biopower.
is not universally accepted. Some arguments which indict their validity include:
Supporters of kritik argumentation suggest that not all of these indictments are unique to kritiks, meaning that they apply to the traditional debate arguments as well, and that a kritik is just another argument which must be researched and prepared for. They also point out the specificity of many kritiks in relation to policy comparison and implementation (such as Foucault's contributions to our understanding of mental health care or Agamben's relevant contributions to civil liberties). Many of those that believe in the validity of kritik argumentation also argue that because many kritiks indict particularly bad assumptions that the other team has made, there is often no need for an explicitly stated alternative to the other team's offending advocacy. For instance, if the negative has proven that the affirmative's 1AC is racist, then why does the negative need any alternative beyond 'don't advocate racism,' or 'reject racist assumptions'? (The alternative, racial tolerance, is implied
by the nature of the question.) Those who are skeptical of the ultimate value of kritikal debate focus on positions that are not as cut and dried as racism or sexism. Many in the debate community can appreciate when kritikal debate is done well, but also believe that it is an extremely rare occurrence.
The JAMs, an esoteric offshoot of Discordianism
, recognizes kritik as the reductio ad absurdum
of formal debate, and indeed, all logical argumentation. By engaging in the repeated, obsessive deconstruction of any reasoned argument about the matter at hand, practitioners reach a state of satori
wherein they simultaneously understand both the Truth and Not-Truth of the Affirmative, as well as the Truth and Not-Truth of the Negative.
Kritiks are also increasingly popular in the National Parliamentary Debate Association
. They have even begun to be used in the lay-judge dominated International Public Debate Association
, whose paradigms generally demand a jargonless, easy-to-understand articulation of the basic kritik structure. The use of graduate students and non-debate professors to judge parliamentary debates, however, is arguably conducive to the introduction of kritikal argumentation, which frequently resembles philosophical and critical literature found in academia.
. The kritikal affirmative seeks advantages which fix (in the jargon of debate, "solve for") impacts and concepts which are attached to the negative argument of the kritik.
The Kritik affirmative actually had its beginnings on the NDT college circuit at least as early as 1998, and probably earlier. Emory University
, for example, during the South East Asia topic ran a plan to recover landmines under the auspices of an existentialism overview. Harvard likewise ran a hate crimes affirmative three years prior to that (1995) that claimed "rhetorical" advantages. These were both well before the oceans topic referred to above. Given the widespread use of philosophical argumentation throughout the 1990s, however, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy when the FIRST kritik affirmative was born, and, therefore, one should caution against attempting to pin such a title to any one debate.
Framework Arguments:
Depending on the specific type of kritik, debaters will often refute its framework. Examples of common framework arguments include:
Link Arguments:
Similar to a disadvantage, a critical link functions as a way of connecting a plan or advocacy, or particular language choice (as the case may be) with a set of impacts that are uniquely caused by a lack of acceptance of the Alternative. Reciprocally, Affirmatives can make a variety of arguments on a link.
Impact Arguments:
Just like the link arguments, impact arguments can be made to diminish the magnitude, certainty, and in some cases, the severity of the impacts of a kritik. Impact argumentation is usually the solution to the problem of too much defense and too little offense. Impact turns, which argue that the impact is actually a positive effect, are a typical offense oriented response to impact analysis.
Alternative Arguments:
In cases where a negative team has an alternative to their kritik The alternative is typically answered by claims that the alternative cannot solve for the case's harms, meaning like a Counterplan it has a tangible solvency deficit. Other options include arguing that the alternative (or the critiquing teams discourse) also links to the kritik and "counter kritiks." Counter kritiks are independent criticisms of the alternative and function has offense answers that are not turns. They also follow kritik structure, though often in a much more compact format and use the affirmative plan as an alternative.
In cases where the critiquing team has not offered an alternative, it is often argued that the kritik represents the status quo and the affirmative will argue that the negative has to win arguments proving that inaction is the best option win order to negate the case harms.
Permutations:
Permutations are abbreviated "perm" in debate parlance. Perms either test whether or not the alternative of the kritik is competitive (trades off) with the advocacy of the Affirmative or present a 3rd option merger of the two positions that the affirmative might choose to advocate. The latter is often subject to claims of abuse by the negative team. Affirmative speakers make strategic decisions about deploying permutations based on the needs of winning the round overall and claims made by the negative team about the legitimacy of the perm.
Policy debate
Policy debate is a form of speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government or security discourse...
(As well, though less commonly, in LD debate) , a kritik (derived from German
German language
German is a West Germanic language, related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. With an estimated 90 – 98 million native speakers, German is one of the world's major languages and is the most widely-spoken first language in the European Union....
Kritik, meaning critique
Critique
Critique is a method of disciplined, systematic analysis of a written or oral discourse. Critique is commonly understood as fault finding and negative judgement, but it can also involve merit recognition, and in the philosophical tradition it also means a methodical practice of doubt...
and traditionally pronounced as "critique", and often abbreviated K) is generally a type of argument
Argument
In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, or give evidence or reasons for accepting a particular conclusion.Argument may also refer to:-Mathematics and computer science:...
that challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory
Critical theory
Critical theory is an examination and critique of society and culture, drawing from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities. The term has two different meanings with different origins and histories: one originating in sociology and the other in literary criticism...
; it is often spelled in the normal English critique or is sometimes called a criticism, and takes the adjective form kritikal (meaning and pronounced as "critical").
A kritik can either be deployed by the negative team to challenge the affirmative advocacy or by the affirmative team to indict the status quo
Status quo
Statu quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are...
or the negative advocacy. Although many teams in pre-merger Cross Examination Debate Association
Cross Examination Debate Association
The Cross Examination Debate Association is the largest intercollegiate policy debate association in the United States. Throughout the school year, CEDA sanctions over 60 tournaments throughout the nation, including an annual National Championship Tournament that brings together over 175...
debates advocated philosophical objections to plans and resolutions for several years prior to the advent of the "Kritik," the argument was more self-consciously developed by NDT
National Debate Tournament
The National Debate Tournament is one of the national championships for collegiate policy debate in the United States. The tournament is sponsored by the American Forensic Association with the Ford Motor Company Fund.-History of the NDT:...
teams at The University of Texas, coached by Bill Shanahan. Bill Shanahan and his good friend Mr. Stafford "shane stafford" created the anarchism CP that at the end had a vote neg on ontology and this started labor movements leading to an existing "single-citizen" argumentation paradigm which called for the judge to vote a single citizen's conscience rather than adopting the role of the federal government.
The Shanahan kritik is more a decision calculus than the kritiks which emerged on the college circuit in the early 1990s on the nature of language's intrinsic ambiguity. Early innovators of the kritik included CEDA teams from Cal State-Chico, Southwestern College (Kansas) and the University of Missouri-Kansas City. These pre-merger debaters combined elements of traditional "value objection" and criteria-based non-policy arguments with postmodern, metaphysical, and philosophical perspectives to create a powerful, though often amorphous, negative strategy. Though kritiks are now found generally in policy debate
Policy debate
Policy debate is a form of speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government or security discourse...
, their usage is also increasingly found in Lincoln-Douglas debate
Lincoln-Douglas debate
Lincoln–Douglas debate is sometimes also called values debate because it traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy...
and NPDA and NPTE parliamentary debate
Parliamentary Debate
Parliamentary Debate is an academic debate event. Many university level institutions in English speaking nations sponsor parliamentary debate teams, but the format is currently spreading to the high school level as well...
.
Structure
The structure of the kritik is generally similar to that of the disadvantageDisadvantage
In policy debate, a disadvantage is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered.-Structure:...
in that it includes a link and an impact or implication. Unlike the disadvantage, however, it excludes uniqueness and includes an alternative. This structure has inspired some in the debate community to question whether a kritik is "just a non-unique disadvantage." Disadvantages, however, usually assume a consequentialist
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct...
/utilitarian
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can...
paradigm of impact analysis, while kritiks employ different decision-making frameworks. There is, however, no hard and fast rule regarding the structure of a kritik. In fact, a rejection of traditional argument structure may actually be at the very heart of kritiks. The "reductionism" kritik utilized by Southwestern College in the early 90s, for instance, maintained that the cartesian, linear thinking patterns utilized in academic debate were sufficiently damaging to warrant rejection.
Link
It is usually assumed that a kritikal link, unlike a disadvantage link, need not be unique; that is, the team putting forward the kritik (almost always the negative) need not prove that the impacts claimed by the argument could not be triggered by the status quoStatus quo
Statu quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are...
—that the affirmative does not uniquely lead to the impact. Instead, the typical kritikal link is one of re-entrenching the philosophy or mindset to be criticized by the argument, be it biopower
Biopower
Biopower was a term coined by French Social theorist and philosopher Michel Foucault it refers to the practice of modern states and their regulation of their subjects through "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations." ...
/biopolitics
Biopolitics
The term "biopolitics" or "biopolitical" can refer to several different yet often compatible concepts.-Definitions:# In the work of Michel Foucault, the style of government that regulates populations through "biopower" .# In the works of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, anti-capitalist insurrection...
, racism
Racism
Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature...
, militarism
Militarism
Militarism is defined as: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests....
, realism in international relations
Realism (international relations)
In the study of international relations, Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions...
, patriarchy
Patriarchy
Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination...
, statism
Statism
Statism is a term usually describing a political philosophy, whether of the right or the left, that emphasises the role of the state in politics or supports the use of the state to achieve economic, military or social goals...
, imperialism
Imperialism
Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationships, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." The imperialism of the last 500 years,...
/Orientalism, capitalism
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism. There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category...
, gendered language, or other objectionable systems of thought and action.
Impact or Implication
The kritikal impact or implication varies depending on the nature of the kritik. Kritiks of such things as biopower, militarism, and capitalism often argue that the indicted concept justifies nuclear warNuclear warfare
Nuclear warfare, or atomic warfare, is a military conflict or political strategy in which nuclear weaponry is detonated on an opponent. Compared to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare can be vastly more destructive in range and extent of damage...
, genocide
Genocide
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars...
, and totalitarianism
Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible...
. Other kritiks, such as those of language, racism, and those advocating Objectivism
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Objectivism is a philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand . Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception...
typically claim deontological
Deontological ethics
Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty"...
impacts; that is, the positive effects of the affirmative are unimportant compared to the ethical damage it does. However, these are generalities and, for instance, a kritik of biopower may simply argue that, from a deontological perspective, a judge has a moral imperative
Moral imperative
A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be...
to reject biopower.
Alternative
The alternative is the core of what separates the kritik from being just a highly philosophical linear disadvantage. The alternative is generally supposed to provide an advocacy other than that which the affirmative has put forward; however, the alternative tends to be "reject the criticized philosophy" or "reject the affirmative." More substantive alternatives exist however; a kritik which takes the position of Ayn Rand's Objectivism might include "adopt the Objectivist program" as the alternative.Criticism of kritiks
The validity of kritiks in policy debatePolicy debate
Policy debate is a form of speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government or security discourse...
is not universally accepted. Some arguments which indict their validity include:
- De-emphasis on topic related researchResearchResearch can be defined as the scientific search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories, usually using a scientific method...
. In a 1996 Rostrum article G. William Bennett states: "Kritiks discourage research on the topic, decrease the variety of cases and attacks, and substitute in their place an increased emphasis on deconstructing ideas and language." - Reduced pedagogicalPedagogyPedagogy is the study of being a teacher or the process of teaching. The term generally refers to strategies of instruction, or a style of instruction....
value of debate. Bennett continues: "The constructive and more encompassing nature of policy clash increases the discussion of multiple ideas and is more educationally worthwhile." - Unfair burden on judges to decide appropriateness of affirmative policy plan. Some argue that kritiks (when offered without an alternative) put judges in situations where articulating a fair winner is impossible because the judge is asked to "eat" the affirmative case's harms in order to endorse the Kritik's ethical position.
- Evidence in Kritiks is generally taken from critical philosophy, and as a result of having to fit into orally read, limited time speeches, the evidence is piecemeal and taken largely out of context and represents incomplete and often wildly inaccurate caricatures of the views of the actual authors. The reason that the authors involved write whole books is because they need whole books to be complete and clear.
Supporters of kritik argumentation suggest that not all of these indictments are unique to kritiks, meaning that they apply to the traditional debate arguments as well, and that a kritik is just another argument which must be researched and prepared for. They also point out the specificity of many kritiks in relation to policy comparison and implementation (such as Foucault's contributions to our understanding of mental health care or Agamben's relevant contributions to civil liberties). Many of those that believe in the validity of kritik argumentation also argue that because many kritiks indict particularly bad assumptions that the other team has made, there is often no need for an explicitly stated alternative to the other team's offending advocacy. For instance, if the negative has proven that the affirmative's 1AC is racist, then why does the negative need any alternative beyond 'don't advocate racism,' or 'reject racist assumptions'? (The alternative, racial tolerance, is implied
Implication
Implication may refer to:In logic:* Logical implication, entailment, or consequence, a relation between statements* Material implication, or conditional implication, a binary truth functionIn linguistics, specifically in pragmatics:...
by the nature of the question.) Those who are skeptical of the ultimate value of kritikal debate focus on positions that are not as cut and dried as racism or sexism. Many in the debate community can appreciate when kritikal debate is done well, but also believe that it is an extremely rare occurrence.
The JAMs, an esoteric offshoot of Discordianism
Discordianism
Discordianism is a religion based on the worship of Eris , the Greco-Roman goddess of strife. It was founded circa 1958–1959 after the publication of its holy book the Principia Discordia, written by Malaclypse the Younger and Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst after a series of shared hallucinations at a...
, recognizes kritik as the reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition's being false would imply a contradiction...
of formal debate, and indeed, all logical argumentation. By engaging in the repeated, obsessive deconstruction of any reasoned argument about the matter at hand, practitioners reach a state of satori
Satori
is a Japanese Buddhist term for enlightenment that literally means "understanding". In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to a flash of sudden awareness, or individual enlightenment, and is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward nirvana....
wherein they simultaneously understand both the Truth and Not-Truth of the Affirmative, as well as the Truth and Not-Truth of the Negative.
Usage
In general, kritiks have been universally accepted in National Circuit (Tournament of Champions) debate and most inter-collegiate policy debate, and less accepted in particular regions of National Forensic League debate, especially by new, or "lay" judges. It is unclear whether this is due to a problem intrinsic to the structure of the kritik, or simply poor explanation. Often, philosophical issues are relatively complex and often the small amount of time a negative team gets to speak during the duration of a round is not enough time to fully explain the complexities of the argument.Kritiks are also increasingly popular in the National Parliamentary Debate Association
National Parliamentary Debate Association
The National Parliamentary Debate Association is one of the two national intercollegiate parliamentary debate organizations in the United States. The other is the American Parliamentary Debate Association. The NPDA is a relatively young organization, but it is now the largest college debate...
. They have even begun to be used in the lay-judge dominated International Public Debate Association
International Public Debate Association
The International Public Debate Association , inaugurated on 15 February 1997 at St. Mary's University, Texas in San Antonio, is a national debate league currently active in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Florida, and...
, whose paradigms generally demand a jargonless, easy-to-understand articulation of the basic kritik structure. The use of graduate students and non-debate professors to judge parliamentary debates, however, is arguably conducive to the introduction of kritikal argumentation, which frequently resembles philosophical and critical literature found in academia.
The Kritikal Affirmative
The realm of the kritik has extended beyond the negative argument into the region of the affirmative caseCase (policy debate)
In policy debate, a case, sometimes known as plan, is a textual advocacy presented by the affirmative team as a normative or "should" statement, generally in the 1AC...
. The kritikal affirmative seeks advantages which fix (in the jargon of debate, "solve for") impacts and concepts which are attached to the negative argument of the kritik.
The Kritik affirmative actually had its beginnings on the NDT college circuit at least as early as 1998, and probably earlier. Emory University
Emory University
Emory University is a private research university in metropolitan Atlanta, located in the Druid Hills section of unincorporated DeKalb County, Georgia, United States. The university was founded as Emory College in 1836 in Oxford, Georgia by a small group of Methodists and was named in honor of...
, for example, during the South East Asia topic ran a plan to recover landmines under the auspices of an existentialism overview. Harvard likewise ran a hate crimes affirmative three years prior to that (1995) that claimed "rhetorical" advantages. These were both well before the oceans topic referred to above. Given the widespread use of philosophical argumentation throughout the 1990s, however, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy when the FIRST kritik affirmative was born, and, therefore, one should caution against attempting to pin such a title to any one debate.
Answering the Kritik
Kritik arguments are typically answered in a particular sequence, but this sequence can vary depending on the desire of the debater to conform to the paradigm of his/her critic.Framework Arguments:
Depending on the specific type of kritik, debaters will often refute its framework. Examples of common framework arguments include:
No articulated framework--the critiquing team has failed to meet an obligation for describing an alternative method for evaluating the round;
Framework turn--attempts to flip the theoretical basis of the argument and win that it is a functional reason to reject the kritik;
Alternative frameworks are illegitimate--the Affirmative team has the right to frame the round to protect ground and research;
and Framework permutations, which test whether or not the critical basis of the argument is functionally competitive with the case/Affirmative advocacy. According to more traditional negation theory, if the affirmative team wins the framework permutation they will usually moot the substantive debate on the criticism, because if it is possible to conform to the Negative’s framework while passing the Affirmative plan
there is no logical reason to reject the Affirmative.
Link Arguments:
Similar to a disadvantage, a critical link functions as a way of connecting a plan or advocacy, or particular language choice (as the case may be) with a set of impacts that are uniquely caused by a lack of acceptance of the Alternative. Reciprocally, Affirmatives can make a variety of arguments on a link.
Impact Arguments:
Just like the link arguments, impact arguments can be made to diminish the magnitude, certainty, and in some cases, the severity of the impacts of a kritik. Impact argumentation is usually the solution to the problem of too much defense and too little offense. Impact turns, which argue that the impact is actually a positive effect, are a typical offense oriented response to impact analysis.
Alternative Arguments:
In cases where a negative team has an alternative to their kritik The alternative is typically answered by claims that the alternative cannot solve for the case's harms, meaning like a Counterplan it has a tangible solvency deficit. Other options include arguing that the alternative (or the critiquing teams discourse) also links to the kritik and "counter kritiks." Counter kritiks are independent criticisms of the alternative and function has offense answers that are not turns. They also follow kritik structure, though often in a much more compact format and use the affirmative plan as an alternative.
In cases where the critiquing team has not offered an alternative, it is often argued that the kritik represents the status quo and the affirmative will argue that the negative has to win arguments proving that inaction is the best option win order to negate the case harms.
Permutations:
Permutations are abbreviated "perm" in debate parlance. Perms either test whether or not the alternative of the kritik is competitive (trades off) with the advocacy of the Affirmative or present a 3rd option merger of the two positions that the affirmative might choose to advocate. The latter is often subject to claims of abuse by the negative team. Affirmative speakers make strategic decisions about deploying permutations based on the needs of winning the round overall and claims made by the negative team about the legitimacy of the perm.