In this opinion article, NDPL Correspondent Kevin Chen shares insights on Kritiks in parli (including how to beat them!)
With the culminating Tournament of Champions just one week away and a judge pool comprising nearly 30% tech judges, it is more important than ever for debaters to be familiar with Kritiks. The seemingly contrived philosophical arguments and complex language used in Ks make them a daunting argument for most debaters to encounter. This article aims to demystify the strategy and present it as effectively a complicated disadvantage and counterplan.
Structure
You’ll usually see Kritiks run in a four-segment structure: Framework, Links, Impacts, and the Alternative. Let’s go through these one by one.
A: Framework
The framework of a K could be seen as a much broader, prescriptive uniqueness argument that interrogates a structural assumption of the opposition team. Usually, this section is headed by a Role of the Ballot (ROTB), a fancy phrase that in effect tells the judge what their ballot should be used for. For example, the implicit ROTB of standard case debate is to determine if the plan is good or bad. A K ROTB, on the other hand, could conceivably be anything, from voting on the team that best deconstructs a type of rhetoric to endorsing the best paradigm for policymaking.
The rest of the framework establishes an alternative way of engaging with the debate space, critiquing numerous structural assumptions in traditional argumentation and justifying the ROTB. A classic framework point that is embedded in almost all Ks is that fiat is illusory and/or bad. It points out that fiat, or the power of the Aff to will the plan into existence when debating, does not actually produce the same action in the real world and instead causes Negative impacts like false confidence in climate policy. Another popular framework argument is serial policy failure (SPF), which is seen commonly in Ks arguing against policy or the state. SPF makes a root cause claim for the inherent ineffectiveness of policy actions, basically saying that any policy from the Aff will fail when attempting reform without structural change.
At the end of the framework sheet, many teams will include a thesis, which explains the general ideological argument of the K. It’s probably going to be important to note this down and ask questions, especially if it’s based off of a specific philosopher’s work.
B: Links
Links in a K function similarly to links in a disadvantage in that it argues that the Aff does something that leads to undesirable impacts. However, instead of arguing that the Aff directly causes a tangible impact (eg. the plan causes inflation), the link here establishes how an action or assumption of the Affirmative either sustains or perpetuates the system the K is criticizing. For example, a common link seen in a Capitalism K describes how the Aff’s reliance on state policy as a means of change reifies the exploitative system of capitalism by masking it with mild reform. Other links can be more specific to the plan itself and what it does; in the case of a plan advocating for US foreign direct investment in third-world countries, the link could be that FDI is a method for the US to debt-trap poorer countries to impose its imperialism.
More often than not, Ks that don’t just critique methodology will include epistemological (def. relating to the theory or production of knowledge) links that challenge how the Aff frames knowledge and reality. In a Securitization K (which argues that the state justifies violence by magnifying threats), for example, a generic link is that the Aff constructs uniqueness claims to establish a brink, which justifies securitization and the necessity of the plan. Another type of epistemological link focuses on discourse, critiquing the Aff’s rhetoric as inherently problematic.
C: Impacts
The impacts of a K are comparable to regular impacts, describing how the Aff perpetuating the critiqued system will lead to a net harm in society. Impact scenarios are especially tricky because they very often involve many try or die arguments, introducing big stick structural impacts that outweigh any proximal impact of the Aff. Some common impacts on a Capitalism K you’ll see are no value to life, which basically argues that all people are reduced to productive machines, and ecological destruction, which says that the profit-driven nature of capitalism will lead to infinite resource exploitation and exacerbated climate change. Many other common impacts address pre-fiat issues, such as rhetoric, which the team will argue is more pressing than any fiat-world issue. If not responded to well, any marginal risk of offense in a K impact up-layers Aff impacts; so even if you win your case-level impacts, you lose the round.
D: Alternative
Then comes the alternative of the K. You can think of this section as a counterplan, although its advocacy may look very different from a normal policy action. These actions could happen either in the post-fiat world, meaning in the same realm as usual resolutional debate, or in the pre-fiat world, which is the actual world we live in.
Many post-fiat alternatives revolve around an armed revolution or a protracted people's war, as seen in Ks opposing the state. These will use fiat to begin an armed struggle against the oppressive system the K is critiquing, with solvency claims being substantiated with historical precedent. These are tricky in the sense that they often include pre-fiat solvency as well, for example arguing that even talking about the efficacy of an armed revolution is good for critical education in the debate space, regardless of if the alternative produces good in fiat world.
Pre-fiat alternatives fall into two general categories: reject or endorse. These tend to be worded very differently from counterplans, an example being “Vote Negative to reject securitization” or “Vote Negative to endorse an absolute commitment to class struggle.” Both of these attempt to reframe the system or view the round through an alternative lens. The solvency of these arguments tend to revolve around educating the debaters or judges in the round about shifting to a better mindset.
Responses
Responding to Kritiks is no different than responding to any other argument. The single most important thing to keep in mind when encountering Ks is to calm down and not get overwhelmed by the fast speaking or big words. Think back to your flowing drills—note down two or three important words per point, use shorthand to hasten your writing, think of responses on your feet. If needed, you could always ask your partner to flow for you while you think of rebuttals or vice versa.
A: Framework
K frameworks are often packed with tricks and hidden arguments that could outframe you if you’re not careful in your responses, fiat bad and SPF being two common examples. To answer the framework, you should first offer a counter-role of the ballot (CROTB). These could look like “The role of the ballot is to evaluate the desirability of the plan,” along with reasons why this is preferable to the K ROTB. You then justify this CROTB through responses to other K framework points, especially the ones that frame policy as inherently bad as you’re defending policy debate. An easy overview-level response that you can make is that the state is inevitably going to be the locus of power, so engaging in debate to gain policy education is the only way to achieve any impact in the real world, hence your CROTB.
The other framework-level responses could be logically made as any other responses in parli. For example, you could say that fiat is important because it allows us to debate about the impacts of a possible government policy or that state reform is still possible as seen through the 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery. The best way to come up with these responses is by thinking about why the systems the K is critiquing exist—why does the Aff have fiat power, why do we do policy debate, etc. Pondering these questions can help with your intuition in responding to Ks.
B: Links
Responses to links and impacts, work functionally the exact same way as normal case debate does. For example, a no-link argument against the Securitization K could be that your uniqueness isn’t constructed, it’s accurate and substantiated. An especially prevalent type of link-level argument, though, is the relink. Many Ks have an alternative or some sort of rhetoric that perpetuates the same bad system that they’re critiquing, such as if the Neg critiques the pursuance of desire but still desires the ballot. If you can find one of these instances, it’s easy to defend that a team relinking into their own K is worse than you linking in, perhaps because it corrupts their philosophical movement from within.
C: Impacts
Something to be very wary of on K impacts is try-or-die claims. As mentioned before, the K often has extinction impacts, which when weighed well could win against any Aff impact by pure strength of link. Again, these impacts can be treated the same as any case impact, so don’t get scared by the big claims!
D: Alternative
The alternative is often the weakest link of a K, so be sure to recognize what their advocacy is actually doing. The same way you would refute a plan or counterplan, you need to take out their solvency and read disadvantages on their action. Many post-fiat alternatives revolve around some sort of protracted people’s war, so the obvious response is that the state is going to crush your movement and lead to mass death. This acts both as a solvency takeout and a turn. Since this is a common scenario in K rounds, it’s good to memorize historical warrants for revolutions not working. In a pre-fiat alternative, the solvency is the easiest to refute. Since they are usually worded in the reject or endorse format mentioned above, they often have incredibly marginal impacts constrained to your specific debate round, which is probably not worth sacrificing topical case debate for.
Another good argument that should nearly always be read is a permutation. A perm is a test of competition for any Negation advocacy, in other words a response arguing that both the Aff and the Neg can exist in the same world. If this perm wins, it means that the Neg isn’t fulfilling their burden of negating the Aff, winning you the alternative no matter if you win the K or not. For example, you could argue that raising the federal minimum wage and endorsing a protracted people’s war aren’t mutually exclusive. Almost all alternatives will also include perm spikes, though, arguing why their advocacy is competitive. These are important to respond to, or else the K team can extend their spikes and kill your perm. Recall that winning the perm does not necessarily win you the round, it just means the K doesn’t get unique solvency, so you can still lose by linking into the K impacts.
Case
Don’t forget to win your own case. Your opponents may spend about a minute in their speech dumping cross-applied turns on your case, which tend to be easy to refute if you’re winning the K. You never want to lose on presumption if the K is a wash, so extend, extend, extend!
A good acronym to keep track of K responses is FPOSTAL, which stands for: framework, permutation, offense, solvency, theory, alternative, and links.
Kevin Chen is a current parliamentary debater, junior at the Nueva School, and National Parliamentary Debate League Correspondent.